ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluating biochar extraction from waste tree stumps in different pyrolysis systems using life cycle analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deciphering biochar-PGPR-plant synergies for sustainable soil rhizoremediation of organic pollutants.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the growing global attention to climate change and reducing environmental pollution, it is necessary to look for sustainable technologies that help curtail carbon dioxide emissions and create useful products from waste. The hypothesis of this study was that recycling wood waste reduces the negative impact on the environment, and the biochar obtained during processing could be used to create secondary, environmentally friendly products. This study evaluated the environmental effects of biochar production using two pyrolysis reactors, UMT-3 PLUS EcoTeploOtbor (SC-1) and BIO-KILN-1 (SC-2), across various impact categories, including global warming potential (GWP), human toxicity (HT), freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity (FWE), marine aquatic ecotoxicity (MAE), and terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE). The functional unit for this study was defined as 1 ton of biochar, which allowed for meaningful comparisons between studies and ensures data reproducibility. SC-1 showed higher impacts, with preparation and processing of tree stumps (SBP) contributing 643.02 kg CO₂eq total GWP without carbon sequestration, 134.47 kg 1,4-DBeq to HT, and 347,097.03 kg 1,4-DBeq to MAE - 8.65% higher than SC-2. Carbon sequestration potential resulted in net negative GWP values: -2,036.98 kg CO₂eq for SC-1 and - 1,866.31 kg CO₂eq for SC-2. Chemical analysis confirmed heavy metals in biochar are within permissible limits, and most material accumulated on the 2 mm sieve, indicating suitability for further use, such as granulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.