Abstract
of river sediments are dredged each year, part of which are contaminated to such an extent that they have to be landfilled. This study compares the use of biochar and hydrochar for the remediation of sediment contaminated with pentachlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene, lindane, trifluralin, alachlor, simazine, and atrazine with the motivation to make sediments contaminated by such priority substances usable as arable land for growing energy crops. Biochar and hydrochar originating from Miscanthus giganteus and Beta vulgaris shreds were compared for their potential to reduce contaminant associated risk in sediments. Specifically, by investigating the effects of sorbent amendment rate (1, 5, and 10 %) and incubation time (14, 30, and 180 d) on contaminant bioaccessibility, toxicity to the bacteria Vibrio fischeri, as well as toxicity and plant uptake in Zea mays. Biochar reduced contaminant bioaccessibility up to five times more than hydrochar. The bioaccessibility of contaminants decreased up to sevenfold with increasing incubation time, indicating that the performance of carbonaceous sorbents may be underestimated in short-term lab experiments. Biochar reduced contaminants toxicity to Vibrio fischeri, whereas hydrochar was itself toxic to the bacteria. Toxicity to Zea mays was determined by contaminant bioaccessibility but also sorbent feedstock with cellulose rich Beta vulgaris based sorbents exhibiting toxic effects. The plant uptake of all contaminants decreased after sorbent amendment.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar reduced contaminant bioaccessibility up to five times more than hydrochar.
- Treatment
- Biochare0
- Outcome
- contaminant bioaccessibilitye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- up to five timese0
- Comparator
- hydrochare0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Biochar reduced contaminant bioaccessibility up to five times more than hydrochar”
Claim · model-written summary
Contaminant bioaccessibility fell up to sevenfold with longer incubation.
- Treatment
- incubation timee0
- Outcome
- bioaccessibility of contaminantse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- up to sevenfolde0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The bioaccessibility of contaminants decreased up to sevenfold with increasing incubation time”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar reduced contaminant toxicity to Vibrio fischeri.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Biochar reduced contaminants toxicity to Vibrio fischeri, whereas hydrochar was itself toxic to the bacteria”
Claim · model-written summary
Hydrochar was toxic to Vibrio fischeri.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“hydrochar was itself toxic to the bacteria”
e1“Biochar reduced contaminants toxicity to Vibrio fischeri”
Claim · model-written summary
Contaminant bioaccessibility determined toxicity to Zea mays.
Zea maysNot reportedCompoundDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Toxicity to Zea mays was determined by contaminant bioaccessibility”
Claim · model-written summary
Cellulose-rich Beta vulgaris sorbents had toxic effects on Zea mays.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cellulose rich Beta vulgaris based sorbents exhibiting toxic effects”
e1“Toxicity to Zea mays was determined by contaminant bioaccessibility but also sorbent feedstock”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorbent amendment decreased plant uptake of all contaminants.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The plant uptake of all contaminants decreased after sorbent amendment”
e1“toxicity and plant uptake in Zea mays”
The same questions in other papers
biochar · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →biochar · molecular: metabolites · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
29 papers more in this group
See all 33 papers →other · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
106 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
115 papers more in this group
See all 119 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.