10.57647/ijrowa.2026.7968

Characterization of Biochar Produced from Cacao Pod Husk with Smallholder Farmers in Farm-Scale Reactors

PDF
  • Latifah Hamzah1,
  • Ning-Geng Ong2,
  • Adam Nayak3,
  • Stephen Luby4,
  • Olga Vindušková*5,
  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Y2E2, 473 Via Ortega, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, United States
  2. Temper and Sense, 8, Jalan 3/37A, Taman Bukit Maluri, 52100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  3. Department of Earth & Environmental Engineering, Mudd Building, Columbia University, 500 W 120th St, New York, NY 10027, United States
  4. Woods Institute for the Environment, Y2E2, MC 4205, 473 Via Ortega, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, United States
  5. Institute for Environmental Studies, Charles University, Prague 128 01, Czech Republic

Received: 2024-11-22

Revised: 2025-12-01

Accepted: 2025-12-21

Published in Issue 2026-06-30

Published Online: 2026-01-02

Copyright (c) -1 Latifah Hamzah, Ning-Geng Ong, Adam Nayak, Stephen Luby, Olga Vindušková (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Hamzah, L., Ong, N.-G., Nayak, A., Luby, S., & Vindušková, O. (2026). Characterization of Biochar Produced from Cacao Pod Husk with Smallholder Farmers in Farm-Scale Reactors. International Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.57647/ijrowa.2026.7968
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 63

Abstract

Purpose: Cacao pod husks, comprising 70% of the crop weight, are usually discarded back on the plot representing a waste stream, even though it could be used to produce biochar, a valuable soil amendment. Biochar is usually produced in large-scale reactors; however, producing it in farm-scale reactors could be more affordable and socially equitable for the farmers, and more sustainable. Here, we investigate whether cacao husk biochar can be produced using farm-scale reactors and has properties suitable for use as soil amendment.

Method: With Malaysian cacao farmers, we fabricated two reactor setups operating under pyrolysis and gasification. We characterized its properties according to International Biochar Initiative standards and compared the two production processes.

Results: Both reactor setups reliably converted cacao husks into biochar. The biochars passed all toxicology tests. Gasifier biochar largely contained more nutrients (total P, K, Ca, Mg, and S) and volatile matter than retort biochar, likely because gasification required quenching before complete thermochemical conversion to preserve yield. As quenching induces thermal shock, gasifier biochar had higher pore volumes (0.02 vs. 0.002 cm3/g), pore sizes (20.08 vs. 9.61 nm), and surface areas (48.58 vs. 8.34 m2/g) relative to retort biochar. The gasifier reactor also required less setup time (30 vs. 120 mins) and capital cost, but had longer post-processing times, lower yields (13% vs. 33% feedstock weight), and lower pyrolysis temperatures.

Conclusion: The production of cacao husk biochar with small-scale reactors proved successful and cost-efficient, and could be used to produce biochar locally at the waste source.

Highlights:

·        Two types of biochar reactors designed to fit ~10 kg of dried cacao husks.

·        Both gasifier and retort biochars passed all international toxicological standards.

·        Gasifier biochar had higher nutrients and greater surface area than retort.

·        Gasifier had lower costs but lower yield (13%) compared to retort (33%).

·        Gasifier required less setup time but longer post-processing.

PDF

References

  1. Abbey, C. Y. B., Duwiejuah, A. B., & Quianoo, A. K. (2022). Removal of toxic metals from aqueous phase using cacao pod husk biochar in the era of green chemistry. Applied Water Science, 13(2), 57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-022-01863-5
  2. Adam, S. P. F. M., Bahrun, A., & Alwi, L. O. (2020). Respon Pertumbuhan Bibit Kakao (Theobroma cacao L.) Pada Pemberian Biochar dan MOL. Berkala Penelitian Agronomi, 8(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.33772/bpa.v8i1.13314
  3. Adjin-Tetteh, M., Asiedu, N., Dodoo-Arhin, D., Karam, A., & Amaniampong, P. N. (2018). Thermochemical conversion and characterization of cocoa pod husks a potential agricultural waste from Ghana. Industrial Crops and Products, 119, 304–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.02.060
  4. Ahmad, M., Rajapaksha, A. U., Lim, J. E., Zhang, M., Bolan, N., Mohan, D., Vithanage, M., Lee, S. S., & Ok, Y. S. (2014). Biochar as a sorbent for contaminant management in soil and water: A review. Chemosphere, 99, 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.10.071
  5. American Public Health Association, Taras, M. J., Water Pollution Control Federation, & American Water Works Association. (1975). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Prepared and published jointly by American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association [and] Water Pollution Control Federation. Joint editorial board: Michael J. Taras [et al.]. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/004447188
  6. Apostolović, T., Gross, A., Rodríguez, Á. F. G., de la Rosa, J. M., Glaser, B., Knicker, H., & Maletić, S. (2024). Impact of Biochar Aging on Soil Physicochemical Properties. Agronomy, 14(12), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14123007
  7. Bahrun, A., Fahimuddin, M. Y., Rakian, T. C., Safuan, L. O., & Kilowasid, L. O. M. H. (2018). Cocoa Pod Husk Biochar Reduce Watering Frequency and Increase Cocoa Seedlings Growth. International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology, 3(5), Article 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/3.5.9
  8. Bednárek, J., Matějová, L., Jankovská, Z., Vaštyl, M., Sokolová, B., Peikertová, P., Šiler, P., Verner, A., Tokarský, J., Koutník, I., Šváb, M., & Vráblová, M. (2022). The influence of structural properties on the adsorption capacities of microwave-assisted biochars for metazachlor removal from aqueous solutions. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 10(3), 108003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2022.108003
  9. Belwal, T., Cravotto, C., Ramola, S., Thakur, M., Chemat, F., & Cravotto, G. (2022). Bioactive Compounds from Cocoa Husk: Extraction, Analysis and Applications in Food Production Chain. Foods, 11(6), 798. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11060798
  10. Bonanomi, G., Cesarano, G., Gaglione, S. A., Ippolito, F., Sarker, T., & Rao, M. A. (2017). Soil fertility promotes decomposition rate of nutrient poor, but not nutrient rich litter through nitrogen transfer. Plant and Soil, 412(1), 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-016-3072-1
  11. Cai, J., Wu, W., Liu, R., & Huber, G. W. (2013). A distributed activation energy model for the pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass. Green Chemistry, 15(5), 1331–1340. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3GC36958G
  12. Cantrell, K. B., Hunt, P. G., Uchimiya, M., Novak, J. M., & Ro, K. S. (2012). Impact of pyrolysis temperature and manure source on physicochemical characteristics of biochar. Bioresource Technology, 107, 419–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.11.084
  13. Camps-Arbestain, M., Amonette, J. E., Singh, B., Wang, T., & Schmidt, H. P. (2015). Chapter 8—A Biochar Classification System and Associated Test Methods, from Biochar for environmental management: Science, technology and implementation. In Biochar for Environmental Management: Science, Technology and Implementation (2nd ed.). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  14. Caputo, C., & Mašek, O. (2021). SPEAR (Solar Pyrolysis Energy Access Reactor): Theoretical Design and Evaluation of a Small-Scale Low-Cost Pyrolysis Unit for Implementation in Rural Communities. Energies, 14(8), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14082189
  15. Córdova, B. M., Cruz, J. P. S., Huamani-Palomino, R. G., & Baena-Moncada, A. M. (2020). Simultaneous adsorption of a ternary mixture of brilliant green, rhodamine B and methyl orange as artificial wastewater onto biochar from cocoa pod husk waste. Quantification of dyes using the derivative spectrophotometry method. New Journal of Chemistry, 44(20), 8303–8316. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0NJ00916D
  16. Cornelissen, G., Jubaedah, Nurida, N. L., Hale, S. E., Martinsen, V., Silvani, L., & Mulder, J. (2018). Fading positive effect of biochar on crop yield and soil acidity during five growth seasons in an Indonesian Ultisol. Science of The Total Environment, 634, 561–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.380
  17. Dai, Z., Zhang, X., Tang, C., Muhammad, N., Wu, J., Brookes, P. C., & Xu, J. (2017). Potential role of biochars in decreasing soil acidification—A critical review. Science of The Total Environment, 581–582, 601–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.12.169
  18. de Paula Protásio, T., da Costa, J. S., Scatolino, M. V., Lima, M. D. R., de Assis, M. R., da Silva, M. G., Bufalino, L., Dias Junior, A. F., & Trugilho, P. F. (2022). Revealing the influence of chemical compounds on the pyrolysis of lignocellulosic wastes from the Amazonian production chains. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 19(5), 4491–4508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-021-03416-w
  19. Deenik, J. L., McClellan, A. T., & Uehara, G. (2009). Biochar volatile matter content effects on plant growth and nitrogen transformations in a tropical soil. Western Nutrient Management Conference, 8.
  20. Ding, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, S., Li, Z., Tan, X., Huang, X., Zeng, G., Zhou, L., & Zheng, B. (2016). Biochar to improve soil fertility. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 36(2), 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0372-z
  21. Eduah, J. O., Henriksen, S. W., Nartey, E. K., Abekoe, M. K., & Andersen, M. N. (2020). Nonlinear sorption of phosphorus onto plant biomass-derived biochars at different pyrolysis temperatures. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 19, 100808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2020.100808
  22. Enders, A., Hanley, K., Whitman, T., Joseph, S., & Lehmann, J. (2012). Characterization of biochars to evaluate recalcitrance and agronomic performance. Bioresource Technology, 114, 644–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.03.022
  23. European Committee for Standardization. (2016). EN 14582: Characterization of waste—Halogen and sulfur content—Oxygen combustion in closed systems and determination methods.
  24. FAO. (2021). Standard Operating Procedure for Soil Total Nitrogen—Dumas Dry Combustion Method.
  25. Futa, B., Oleszczuk, P., Andruszczak, S., Kwiecińska-Poppe, E., & Kraska, P. (2020). Effect of natural aging of biochar on soil enzymatic activity and physicochemical properties in long-term field experiment. Agronomy, 10(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10030449
  26. Gamboa-Herrera, J. A., Ríos-Reyes, C. A., & Vargas-Fiallo, L. Y. (2021). Mercury speciation in mine tailings amended with biochar: Effects on mercury bioavailability, methylation potential and mobility. Science of The Total Environment, 760, 143959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143959
  27. Garcia-Nunez, J. A., Pelaez-Samaniego, M. R., Garcia-Perez, M. E., Fonts, I., Abrego, J., Westerhof, R. J. M., & Garcia-Perez, M. (2017). Historical Developments of Pyrolysis Reactors: A Review. Energy & Fuels, 31(6), 5751–5775. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b00641
  28. Government of Malaysia. (2022). Cocoa Cultivated Area By Region And Sector(ha). https://www.koko.gov.my/doc/en/statistics/
  29. Gul, S., Whalen, J. K., Thomas, B. W., Sachdeva, V., & Deng, H. (2015). Physico-chemical properties and microbial responses in biochar-amended soils: Mechanisms and future directions. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 206, 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.03.015
  30. Guo, M., Song, W., & Tian, J. (2020). Biochar-Facilitated soil remediation: mechanisms and efficacy variations. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.521512
  31. Ighalo, J. O., Onifade, D. V., & Adeniyi, A. G. (2021). Retort-heating carbonisation of almond (Terminalia catappa) leaves and LDPE waste for biochar production: Evaluation of product quality. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 14(5), 1059–1067. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2021.1886371
  32. International Biochar Initiative. (2015, November 23). IBI Biochar Standards. https://www.biochar-international.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/IBI_Biochar_Standards_V2.1_Final.pdf
  33. Ippolito, J. A., Cui, L., Kammann, C., Wrage-Mönnig, N., Estavillo, J. M., Fuertes-Mendizabal, T., Cayuela, M. L., Sigua, G., Novak, J., Spokas, K., & Borchard, N. (2020). Feedstock choice, pyrolysis temperature and type influence biochar characteristics: A comprehensive meta-data analysis review. Biochar, 2(4), 421–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-020-00067-x
  34. Jaiswal, A. K., Elad, Y., Cytryn, E., Graber, E. R., & Frenkel, O. (2018). Activating biochar by manipulating the bacterial and fungal microbiome through pre-conditioning. New Phytologist, 219(1), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15042
  35. Jiang, J., Zhang, L., Wang, X., Holm, N., Rajagopalan, K., Chen, F., & Ma, S. (2013). Highly ordered macroporous woody biochar with ultra-high carbon content as supercapacitor electrodes. Electrochimica Acta, 113, 481–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2013.09.121
  36. Joseph, S., Cowie, A. L., Van Zwieten, L., Bolan, N., Budai, A., Buss, W., Cayuela, M. L., Graber, E. R., Ippolito, J. A., Kuzyakov, Y., Luo, Y., Ok, Y. S., Palansooriya, K. N., Shepherd, J., Stephens, S., Weng, Z. (Han), & Lehmann, J. (2021). How biochar works, and when it doesn’t: A review of mechanisms controlling soil and plant responses to biochar. GCB Bioenergy, 13(11), 1731–1764. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12885
  37. Jubaedah, Muhtar, & Nurida, N. L. (2021). Effects of residual biochar amendment on soil chemical properties, nutrient uptake, crop yield and N2O emissions reduction in acidic upland rice of East Lampung. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 648(1), 012103. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/648/1/012103
  38. Kane, S., Ulrich, R., Harrington, A., Stadie, N. P., & Ryan, C. (2021). Physical and chemical mechanisms that influence the electrical conductivity of lignin-derived biochar. Carbon Trends, 5, 100088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cartre.2021.100088
  39. Kim, M., Lee, Y., Park, J., Ryu, C., & Ohm, T. I. (2016). Partial oxidation of sewage sludge briquettes in a updraft fixed bed. Waste Management, 49, 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.01.040
  40. Klinghoffer, N. B., Castaldi, M. J., & Nzihou, A. (2015). Influence of char composition and inorganics on catalytic activity of char from biomass gasification. Fuel, 157, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.04.036
  41. Kong, K. K., & Sii, H. S. (2020). Design and construction of mobile Biochar Kiln for small farmers. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 788(1), 012075. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/788/1/012075
  42. Kookana, R. S., Sarmah, A. K., Van Zwieten, L., Krull, E., & Singh, B. (2011). Chapter three - Biochar Application to Soil: Agronomic and Environmental Benefits and Unintended Consequences. In D. L. Sparks (Ed.), Advances in Agronomy (Vol. 112, pp. 103–143). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385538-1.00003-2
  43. Koraïem, M., & Assanis, D. (2021). Wood stove combustion modeling and simulation: Technical review and recommendations. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, 127, 105423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2021.105423
  44. Lang, J., Matějová, L., Cuentas-Gallegos, A. K., Lobato-Peralta, D. R., Ainassaari, K., Gómez, M. M., Solís, J. L., Mondal, D., Keiski, R. L., & Cruz, G. J. F. (2021). Evaluation and selection of biochars and hydrochars derived from agricultural wastes for the use as adsorbent and energy storage materials. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 9(5), 105979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.105979
  45. Lehmann, J., & Joseph, S. (2015). Biochar for Environmental Management: Science, Technology and Implementation (2nd ed.).
  46. Living Web Farms. (n.d.). Back to Backyard Biochar. Retrieved September 16, 2020, from https://livingwebfarms.org/getting-back-to-backyard-biochar/
  47. Londoño-Larrea, P., Villamarin-Barriga, E., García, A. N., & Marcilla, A. (2022). Study of Cocoa Pod Husks Thermal Decomposition. Applied Sciences, 12(18), Article 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12189318
  48. Lu, F., Rodriguez-Garcia, J., Van Damme, I., Westwood, N. J., Shaw, L., Robinson, J. S., Warren, G., Chatzifragkou, A., McQueen Mason, S., Gomez, L., Faas, L., Balcombe, K., Srinivasan, C., Picchioni, F., Hadley, P., & Charalampopoulos, D. (2018). Valorisation strategies for cocoa pod husk and its fractions. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, 14, 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2018.07.007
  49. Martinsen, V., Alling, V., Nurida, N., Mulder, J., Hale, S., Ritz, C., Rutherford, D., Heikens, A., Breedveld, G., & Cornelissen, G. (2015). pH effects of the addition of three biochars to acidic Indonesian mineral soils. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 61(5), 821–834. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2015.1052985
  50. Meza-Sepúlveda, D. C., Castro, A. M., Zamora, A., Arboleda, J. W., Gallego, A. M., & Camargo-Rodríguez, A. V. (2021). Bio-based value chains potential in the management of cacao pod waste in Colombia, a case study. Agronomy, 11(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11040693
  51. Milian Luperón, L., Hernandez, M., Falcón-Hernández, J., & Otero-Calvis, A. (2020). Obtaining bioproducts by slow pyrolysis of coffee and cocoa husks as suitable candidates for being used as soil amendment and source of energy. Revista Colombiana de Quimica, 49, 23–29. https://doi.org/10.15446/rev.colomb.quim.v49n2.83231
  52. Montes-Morán, M. A., Suárez, D., Menéndez, J. A., & Fuente, E. (2004). On the nature of basic sites on carbon surfaces: An overview. Carbon, 42(7), 1219–1225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2004.01.023
  53. Motolani, M. M. M., Hassan, S., Oluwatoyin, O., & Kasin, R. (2017). ToT and HRD competencies and its relationship to extension agents’ performance among cocoa smallholders. Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, 10(12), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.9790/2380-1012021421
  54. Mukome, F. N. D., Zhang, X. M., Silva, L. C. R., Six, J., & Parikh, S. J. (2013). Use of chemical and physical characteristics to investigate trends in biochar feedstocks. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry., 61, 2196–2204. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf3049142
  55. Najafabadi, H. A., Ozalp, N., & Davis, R. A. (2020). Biochar from cocoa shell pyrolysis: potential sorbent for Co2 capture. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 143(022302). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4047765
  56. Nsamba, H. K., Hale, S., Cornelissen, G., & Bachmann, R. T. (2015a). Designing and Performance Evaluation of Biochar Production in a Top-Lit Updraft Upscaled Gasifier. 5. https://doi.org/10.4236/jsbs.2015.52004
  57. Nsamba, H. K., Hale, S. E., Cornelissen, G., & Bachmann, R. T. (2015b). Sustainable technologies for small-scale biochar production—a review. Journal of Sustainable Bioenergy Systems, 5(1), 10–31. https://doi.org/10.4236/jsbs.2015.51002
  58. Obia, A., Cornelissen, G., Mulder, J., & Dörsch, P. (2015). Effect of soil pH increase by biochar on NO, N2O and N2 production during denitrification in acid soils. PLOS ONE, 10(9), e0138781. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138781
  59. Ofori-Frimpong, K., Asase, A., Mason, J., & Danku, L. (2007). Shaded versus un-shaded cocoa: Implications on litter fall, decomposition, soil fertility and cocoa pod development. Symposium on Multistrata Agroforestry Systems with Perennial Crops, 1721.
  60. Ogunlade, M. O., Odesola, I. F., Akappo, O. A., & Ige, E. O. (2016). Effects of temperature on some chemical properties and yield of biochar derived from cocoa pod husks for soil amendment. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference of Biochar Initiative in Nigeria.
  61. Oluleye, A. K., Ogunlade, M. O., & Adewoyin, O. B. (2023). Response of okra, Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench, to biochar derived from cocoa pod husk and NPK fertiliser. Tropical Agriculture, 100(1), Article 1.
  62. Page, A. L., Miller, R. H., & Keeney, D. R. (Eds.). (1982). Methods of Soil Analysis (1st ed.). American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr9.2.2ed
  63. Pinzon-Nuñez, D. A., Adarme-Duran, C. A., Vargas-Fiallo, L. Y., Rodriguez-Lopez, N., & Rios-Reyes, C. A. (2022). Biochar as a waste management strategy for cadmium contaminated cocoa pod husk residues. International Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture, 11(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.30486/ijrowa.2021.1920124.1192
  64. Pouangam Ngalani, G., Dzemze Kagho, F., Peguy, N. N. C., Prudent, P., Ondo, J. A., & Ngameni, E. (2023). Effects of coffee husk and cocoa pods biochar on the chemical properties of an acid soil from West Cameroon. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 69(5), 744–758. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2022.2033733
  65. Pouangam Ngalani, G., Ondo, J. A., Njimou, J. R., Nanseu Njiki, C. P., Prudent, P., & Ngameni, E. (2023). Effect of coffee husk and cocoa pods biochar on phosphorus fixation and release processes in acid soils from West Cameroon. Soil Use and Management, 39(2), 817–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12894
  66. Promraksa, A., & Rakmak, N. (2020). Biochar production from palm oil mill residues and application of the biochar to adsorb carbon dioxide. Heliyon, 6(5), e04019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04019
  67. Qambrani, N. A., Rahman, Md. M., Won, S., Shim, S., & Ra, C. (2017). Biochar properties and eco-friendly applications for climate change mitigation, waste management, and wastewater treatment: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 79, 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.057
  68. Quansah, E. (2021). The quality of Cocoa Pod Husk Biochar produced with the “Kon-tiki” kiln technology, and its effect as a soil enhancer on the growth rate of cocoa seedlings [Master thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås]. https://nmbu.brage.unit.no/nmbu-xmlui/handle/11250/2829097
  69. Rogers, J., & Augustine, A. (Directors). (2011, February 26). Making Biochar For Small Farms [Video recording]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqkWYM7rYpU
  70. Rozita, O., Saiful Mujahid, A. R., & Shahrih, S. (2022). Production of biochar from cocoa pod husk: preliminary result. Malaysian Cocoa Journal, 14, 73–76.
  71. Sam, A. T., Asuming-Brempong, S., & Nartey, E. K. (2017). Microbial activity and metabolic quotient of microbes in soils amended with biochar and contaminated with atrazine and paraquat. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B — Soil & Plant Science, 67(6), 492–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2017.1302504
  72. Schmidt, H. P., Kammann, C., Hagemann, N., Leifeld, J., Bucheli, T. D., Sánchez Monedero, M. A., & Cayuela, M. L. (2021). Biochar in agriculture – A systematic review of 26 global meta-analyses. GCB Bioenergy, 13(11), 1708–1730. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12889
  73. Scholz, S. B., Sembres, T., Roberts, K., Whitman, T., Wilson, K., & Lehmann, J. (2014). Biochar systems for smallholders in developing countries: leveraging current knowledge and exploring future potential for climate-smart agriculture. World Bank Publications.
  74. Šimanský, V., & Juriga, M. (2025). The effectiveness of biochar on soil pH and sorption capacity of luvisol after the 1st and 9th year of application. Acta Horticulturae et Regiotecturae, 28(1), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.2478/ahr-2025-0010
  75. Singh, B., Camps-Arbestain, M., & Lehmann, J. (2017). Biochar: A guide to analytical methods. Csiro Publishing.
  76. Sobol, Ł., Dyjakon, A., & Soukup, K. (2023). Dioxins and furans in biochars, hydrochars and torreficates produced by thermochemical conversion of biomass: A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 21(4), 2225–2249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-023-01600-7
  77. Song, Z., GaiheYang, Liu, X., Yan, Z., Yuan, Y., & Liao, Y. (2014). Comparison of Seven Chemical Pretreatments of Corn Straw for Improving Methane Yield by Anaerobic Digestion. PLOS ONE, 9(4), e93801. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093801
  78. Sopeña, F., Semple, K., Sohi, S., & Bending, G. (2012). Assessing the chemical and biological accessibility of the herbicide isoproturon in soil amended with biochar. Chemosphere, 88(1), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.02.066
  79. Spokas, K. A. (2010). Review of the stability of biochar in soils: Predictability of O:C molar ratios. Carbon Management, 1(2), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.10.32
  80. Sundberg, C., Karltun, E., Gitau, J. K., Kätterer, T., Kimutai, G. M., Mahmoud, Y., Njenga, M., Nyberg, G., Roing de Nowina, K., Roobroeck, D., & Sieber, P. (2020). Biochar from cookstoves reduces greenhouse gas emissions from smallholder farms in Africa. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 25(6), 953–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-020-09920-7
  81. Tag, A. T., Duman, G., Ucar, S., & Yanik, J. (2016). Effects of feedstock type and pyrolysis temperature on potential applications of biochar. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 120, 200–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2016.05.006
  82. Tan, Z., Lin, C. S. K., Ji, X., & Rainey, T. J. (2017). Returning biochar to fields: A review. Applied Soil Ecology, 116, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.03.017
  83. Taupe, N. C., Lynch, D., Wnetrzak, R., Kwapinska, M., Kwapinski, W., & Leahy, J. J. (2016). Updraft gasification of poultry litter at farm-scale – A case study. Waste Management, 50, 324–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.02.036
  84. Thomas, S. C. (2021). Post-processing of biochars to enhance plant growth responses: A review and meta-analysis. Biochar, 3, 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-021-00115-0
  85. Tomczyk, A., Sokołowska, Z., & Boguta, P. (2020). Biochar physicochemical properties: Pyrolysis temperature and feedstock kind effects. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 19(1), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-020-09523-3
  86. Tsai, C. H., Tsai, W. T., Liu, S. C., & Lin, Y. Q. (2018). Thermochemical characterization of biochar from cocoa pod husk prepared at low pyrolysis temperature. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, 8(2), 237–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-017-0259-5
  87. Tsai, W. T., Hsu, C. H., Lin, Y. Q., Tsai, C. H., Chen, W. S., & Chang, Y. T. (2020). Enhancing the pore properties and adsorption performance of cocoa pod husk (CPH)-derived biochars via post-acid treatment. Processes, 8(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8020144
  88. USEPA. (1994a). Method 1613: Tetra-Through Octa-Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans by Isotope Dilution HRGC/HRMS.
  89. USEPA. (1994b). Method 7471A: Mercury in Solid or Semisolid Waste (Manual Cold-Vapor Technique).
  90. USEPA. (1996a). Method 6010B: Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry.
  91. USEPA. (1996b). Method 8270C: Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography / Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS).
  92. USEPA. (2004). Method 9060A: Total Organic Carbon.
  93. Verheijen, F., Jeffery, S., Bastos, A. C., European Commission, Joint Research Centre, & Institute for Environment and Sustainability. (2010). Biochar application to soils: A critical scientific review of effects on soil properties, processes and functions. Publications Office. http://dx.publications.europa.eu/10.2788/472
  94. Wang, D., Jiang, P., Zhang, H., & Yuan, W. (2020). Biochar production and applications in agro and forestry systems: A review. Science of The Total Environment, 723, 137775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137775
  95. Wang, J., Xiong, Z., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2016). Biochar stability in soil: Meta-analysis of decomposition and priming effects. GCB Bioenergy, 8(3), 512–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12266
  96. Wang, S., Gao, B., Zimmerman, A. R., Li, Y., Ma, L., Harris, W. G., & Migliaccio, K. W. (2015). Physicochemical and sorptive properties of biochars derived from woody and herbaceous biomass. Chemosphere, 134, 257–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.04.062
  97. Wani, I., Sharma, A., Kushvaha, V., Madhushri, P., & Peng, L. (2020). Effect of pH, volatile content, and pyrolysis conditions on surface area and O/C and H/C ratios of biochar: towards understanding performance of biochar using simplified approach. Journal of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste 24(4), 04020048. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HZ.2153-5515.0000545
  98. Weil, R. R., & Brady, N. C. (2017). Nature and Properties of Soils, The. Pearson. https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/nature-and-properties-of-soils-the/P200000000825
  99. Woolf, D., Lehmann, J., Joseph, S., Campbell, C., Christo, F. C., & Angenent, L. T. (2017). An open-source biomass pyrolysis reactor. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 11(6), 945–954. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1814
  100. Xia, H., Liu, B., Riaz, M., Li, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., & Jiang, C. (2022). 30-month pot experiment: biochar alters soil potassium forms, soil properties and soil fungal diversity and composition in acidic soil of southern China. Plants, 11(24), Article 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11243442
  101. Yaashikaa, P. R., Kumar, P. S., Varjani, S., & Saravanan, A. (2020). A critical review on the biochar production techniques, characterization, stability and applications for circular bioeconomy. Biotechnology Reports, 28, e00570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2020.e00570
  102. Yeboah, E., Asamoah, G., Kofi, B., & Abunyewa, A. A. (2016). Effect of biochar type and rate of application on maize yield indices and water use efficiency on an ultisol in Ghana. Energy Procedia, 93, 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.07.143
  103. Yuan, J. H., Xu, R.K., & Zhang, H. (2011). The forms of alkalis in the biochar produced from crop residues at different temperatures. Bioresource Technology, 102(3), 3488–3497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.11.018
  104. Zhang, Z., Zhu, Z., Shen, B., & Liu, L. (2019). Insights into biochar and hydrochar production and applications: A review. Energy, 171, 581–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.01.035
  105. Zielińska, A., Oleszczuk, P., Charmas, B., Skubiszewska-Zięba, J., & Pasieczna-Patkowska, S. (2015). Effect of sewage sludge properties on the biochar characteristic. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 112, 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2015.01.025