Paper · 2016 · Clean Technology

The Cell Viability on Kelp and Fir Biochar and the Effect on the Field Cultivation of Corn

Patrick Boakye; Chul Woo Lee; Won Mook Lee; et al.

10
claims
22
verbatim quotes
10
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Field cultivation of corn and microbial cell viability tests using Pseudomonas putida K-5 were performed to assess the toxic effect of kelp seaweed biochar (KBC) and fir wood biochar (FBC) produced by pyrolysis. After 63 days growth, FBC increased corn growth by 4.9% without fertilizer and by 7.6% with fertilizer, while KBC decreased it by 20.2% without fertilizer and by 27.9% with fertilizer. Physico-chemical characterization of the biochars such as ICP, CHON, and proximate analyses showed that KBC contained large amount of metals and ashes which could be responsible for its inhibition to corn growth. Upon exposure of K-5 cells for 1 h to biochar extracts, the cell viability in KBC extracts was 48.2% and quite lower than that (78.6%) in FBC. Washed KBC biochar with water at 1:10 w/v % increased the cell viability to 54.0%. The results indicated that seaweed biochar may be careful to be used for plant growing additives due to its high concentrations of metals and ashes. This toxic effect could be reduced by proper washing method with water.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fir biochar increased corn growth by 4.9% without fertilizer.

Treatment
FBCe0
Outcome
corn growthe0
Direction
increasede0
Value
4.9%e0
Qualifier
without fertilizere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“FBC increased corn growth by 4.9% without fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 234–286 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fir biochar increased corn growth by 7.6% with fertilizer.

Treatment
FBCe0
Outcome
corn growthe0
Direction
increasede0
Value
7.6%e0
Qualifier
with fertilizere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“FBC increased corn growth by 4.9% without fertilizer and by 7.6% with fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 234–314 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Kelp biochar decreased corn growth by 20.2% without fertilizer.

Treatment
KBCe0
Outcome
corn growtht1
Direction
decreasede0
Value
20.2%e0
Qualifier
without fertilizere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“KBC decreased it by 20.2% without fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 322–366 · show in text ↑
t0

“corn”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 86–90 · show in text ↑
t1

“FBC increased corn growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 234–259 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Kelp biochar decreased corn growth by 27.9% with fertilizer.

Treatment
KBCe0
Outcome
corn growtht1
Direction
decreasede0
Value
27.9%e0
Qualifier
with fertilizere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“KBC decreased it by 20.2% without fertilizer and by 27.9% with fertilizer.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 322–396 · show in text ↑
t0

“corn”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 86–90 · show in text ↑
t1

“FBC increased corn growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 234–259 · show in text ↑
Mechanismhypothesisoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Kelp biochar had abundant metals and ash, proposed to explain corn growth inhibition.

Treatment
KBCe0
Compound
metals and ashese0
Outcome
inhibition to corn growthe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“KBC contained large amount of metals and ashes which could be responsible for its inhibition to corn growth.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 501–609 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

K-5 cell viability was 48.2% in kelp biochar extracts.

Treatment
KBC extractse0
Outcome
cell viabilitye0
Direction
lowere0
Value
48.2%e0
Comparator
FBCe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the cell viability in KBC extracts was 48.2% and quite lower than that (78.6%) in FBC.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 666–752 · show in text ↑
t0

“corn”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 86–90 · show in text ↑
t1

“K-5 cells”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 627–636 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

K-5 cell viability in fir biochar extracts was 78.6%.

Treatment
FBCe0
Outcome
cell viabilitye0
Value
78.6%e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the cell viability in KBC extracts was 48.2% and quite lower than that (78.6%) in FBC.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 666–752 · show in text ↑
t0

“corn”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 86–90 · show in text ↑
t1

“K-5 cells”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 627–636 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Washing kelp biochar raised K-5 cell viability to 54.0%.

Treatment
Washed KBC biochar with water at 1:10 w/v %e0
Outcome
cell viabilitye0
Direction
increasede0
Value
54.0%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Washed KBC biochar with water at 1:10 w/v % increased the cell viability to 54.0%.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 753–835 · show in text ↑
t0

“corn”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 86–90 · show in text ↑
t1

“K-5 cells”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 627–636 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors urge caution when using seaweed biochar as a plant growing additive.

Outcome
seaweed biochar may be careful to be used for plant growing additivese0
Qualifier
high concentrations of metals and ashese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“seaweed biochar may be careful to be used for plant growing additives due to its high concentrations of metals and ashes.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 863–984 · show in text ↑
t0

“corn”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 86–90 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest washing with water to reduce the toxic effect.

Outcome
toxic effect could be reduced by proper washing method with watere0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“This toxic effect could be reduced by proper washing method with water.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 985–1056 · show in text ↑
t0

“corn”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 86–90 · show in text ↑

other · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

184 papers: 164 positive, 20 negative or no effect

19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 164 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

180 papers more in this group

See all 184 papers →

biochar · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

190 papers: 180 positive, 10 negative or no effect

179 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

186 papers more in this group

See all 190 papers →

other · cytology · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.