Re: [EXTERN] Re: [Biochar] Unfavorable research about biochar #pah

Claudia Kammann

Hi all,


I don’t know if this info is of help in your ongoing PAH discussion, but the EBC standard and methodology was based on research, done by the group of Thomas Bucheli back nearly 10 years by now.


They sorbed different PAHs (the 16 EPA PAHs) onto different biochars as substances with isotopic labelling to be able to see how much they get off the char by what method. They found the Soxhlet extraction with Toluol for 36 h to be best to get even the sticky stuff off.


I took the liberty of attaching the paper where the methods were tested – methods to see how you could really desorb all potentially harmful PAHs.


In Europe this was done to ensure that whenever there might be something that is not compliant with the soil protection regulation in Germany, Austria or Switzerland, it would be detected to make biochar application safe and compliant with the regulations. It was a conservative, precaution approach as is typical for Europe.


One can use that or dismiss it, but the work has been done already and is there to be used.


best, Claudia


Von: <> Im Auftrag von Geoff Thomas
Gesendet: Montag, 8. Juni 2020 00:39
Betreff: [EXTERN] Re: [Biochar] Unfavorable research about biochar


Hi Robert, thanks for your comment, I have posted another article today where, despite the inimical sounding beginning, turned out to be positive and not at all related to the high point nor the summary much either, and had lots of helpful info.

It also had some very good points on harmful and non-harmful PAHs.

 Also It is very nice to see wheat grass having un-acceptable levels of PAH but it is the harmless variety

In regard to the 5 points, in that they each came out of the article as it progressed it would be easiest if you just read the article, - you would have to anyway, and I am sure you are smart enough to not need spoon feeding and special underlining and commas and explanations after each and every sentence or phrase.

Does Abhilasha Tripathi include as to whether the researchers use Biochar or use ChemiChar?

I ask that because that is imho a very pressing issue in “Biochar” research, because the results from using Chemichar would be entirely different from using Genuine Biochar, and save us all wasting our time reading the Chemichar researched articles and force the researchers to me more exact and unable to use such vaguenesses as (also the “Biochar” may contain PAHs) -   Streuth!




On 7 Jun 2020, at 10:17 pm, ROBERT W GILLETT <themarvalus.wabio@...> wrote:


Hi Geoff,

Thank-you for raising what may be a key issue in moving biochar forward. I have alluded to similar concerns in a post about a year ago wrt to the fossil fuel industry's influence on R&D budgets. Without going through each of your points, I will say that we should be careful when it comes to implicating scientists as conducting bad faith research. Tying a research project to funding from special interests is a good lead, but not conclusive. The peer review process should catch egregious cases, but I'm sure there are many published papers out there that are intentionally inimical to our cause. However, by and large, I find the monthly recap of research that Abhilasha Tripathi puts together for IBI to be favorable and encouraging. 

Referencing the link you provided, I offered some reasons that this paper may not be good evidence of the issue you have raised. Perhaps you can give particulars as to why it supports your arguments or find clearer evidence in other, more recent papers.

Robert Gillett


Join to automatically receive all group messages.