[Terrapreta] ecotoxins and char

[Tom Miles]

Gerrit,

 

He toxins are products of the pyrolysis process. If you go to the Terra Preta website and select (or search for) “pyrolysis” you get:

 

http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/taxonomy/term/91

 

and several other references. 

 

Tom Miles

 

 

 

From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Gerald Van Koeverden
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 7:48 AM
To: Terrapreta preta
Subject: [Terrapreta] ecotoxins and char

 

How do we get ecotoxins in char??

 

Are these naturally occurring ecotoxins (made by the plant to inhibit fungal and insect damage to the trunk during its life) which are now in a more concentrated form?  

 

Or are these new chemicals produced during the pyrolytic process?

 

Gerrit

 

 

On 9-Dec-07, at 10:49 PM, Edward Someus wrote:






Tom,

 

CARBONIZATION TEMPERATURE: this is a tricky issue, depending on where/which point  You measure in the process. It should be determined as material core temperature, however I met several carbonization plants who where stating 900C carbonization temp, but when it was really measured in the carbon bed and at cold corners, than I found out that it was not more than 350C. So no wonder if their carbon qty was low. If fact carbon is good thermal insulator and bad thermal conductor so the efficient heat transfer is one of the keys.

 

VM% residuals and leachates: YES this is the standard practice the ecotox analytic measures, in total and component by component.

 

NOTE: in one of the TP communication I have seen a note, that this VM residual issue is "easy" to manage by add KOH. I wish that it would be so "easy" just to add high alkaline caustic potash, but it is not, as this is resulting new problems. Most of the soil microbes are optimized for pH 5.5- pH7 and it is so easy to disturb this balance in micro scale.  In my soil experience the drastic interactions into the soil life not use to go towards sustainable direction.

 

The ancient Greeks have right ”For all the pests that out of earth arise the earth itself the antidote supplies” Lithica 400 BC. But it takes time, which we unfortunately do not have time nowdays.

 


Sincerely yours: Edward Someus (environmental engineer)
Terra Humana Clean Tech Ltd. (ISO 9001/ISO 14001)

3R Environmental Technologies Ltd. 
ADDRESS: H-1222 Budapest, Szechenyi 59, Hungary
TEL handy:  +(36-20) 201 7557
TEL / FAX:   +(36-1) 424 0224
TEL SKYPE phone via computer:  Edward Someus
3R TERRACARBON:   http:// <http://www.terrenum.net > www.terrenum.net 

3R CLEANCOAL ENERGY:  <http://www.nvirocleantech.com/> http://www.nvirocleantech.com

 

-------Original Message-------

 

From: Tom Miles <mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com> 

Date: 2007.12.09. 20:09:26

To: 'Edward Someus' <mailto:edward at terrenum.net> ;  'Nikolaus Foidl' <mailto:nfoidl at desa.com.bo> ;  'Gerald Van Koeverden' <mailto:vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca> ;  'Sean K. Barry' <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 

Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org

Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization --------- CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters

 

Edward,

 

These are excellent points. We find that many gasifiers that are used in developing countries use water to clean the gas. The wastewater often contains compounds (tars) in concentrations that are toxic under our regulations. More companies are now becoming aware of these hazards and are working on other ways to clean up the gas and the water.

You can find links to former charcoal making sites that are now hazardous sites on the EPA list. Various methods are used to cleanup these sites.

One study in Africa looked at the production of crops on land formerly used for making charcoal.  It is available on the net and like to the TP website.

Instead of carbonization temperature is volatile matter (%VM) a better measure of the degree of carbonization and hence the level of toxic compounds?

Tom

 

 

From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Edward Someus
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 11:24 PM
To: Nikolaus Foidl; Gerald Van Koeverden; Sean K. Barry
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization --------- Char Hydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters

 


There is a big difference between original and modern TP, among others:

1.	The original TP was a mix of inputs while this can not be followed similarly today for most food crop cultivation.
2.	The original TP was in tropical climate, while I work in Europe continental part. That means that any organic residuals are breaking down far rapidly in tropics and in colder climate.  
3.	The time frame was different. I work in the horticultural industry, which means that I do not have years or decades time to wait, as I have to get result promptly, during food crop production cycle within months. This requires different formulation than original TP.
4.	Our environment is far more complex now than 2500 years ago, more and complex impacts and high dense population.
5.	There are strict legal regulations in the EU/US, with precise analytical measurement options, what you can put into the soil and what not. 2500 years ago it was the good/bad experience only centuries after centuries. NOW you have to report all environmental issues to Authority promptly.

RE YOUR QUESTION: Are you absolutely sure that the residual tars left on conventional low temperature charcoal are toxic? 

 

YES, absolutely, in my ongoing EU project (for and on behalf on the EU Food Safety Commission) I have spent €500,000 during the past 3 years for "carbon-to-soil" exotox analysis, mostly done by German and Dutch institutes, while we are making parallel tests in Italy, UK, Israel, Hungary. The EU product permitting for char to soil is confirming the same. High tar residuals will not pass permit Authority test in the EU. Tars / bio-oils have biocid effects and toxic for life and if these are exposed to nature it takes time for recover again, which many years might be short form nature point of view, -- but long from human and economical point of view.

 

As mentioned before, my and my groups scientific publications (not the confidential parts for product formulation and manufacturing) will be published 2008.

 


Sincerely yours: Edward Someus (environmental engineer)
Terra Humana Clean Tech Ltd. (ISO 9001/ISO 14001)

3R Environmental Technologies Ltd. 
ADDRESS: H-1222 Budapest, Szechenyi 59, Hungary
TEL handy:  +(36-20) 201 7557
TEL / FAX:   +(36-1) 424 0224
TEL SKYPE phone via computer:  Edward Someus
3R TERRACARBON:   http:// <http://www.terrenum.net > www.terrenum.net 

3R CLEANCOAL ENERGY:  <http://www.nvirocleantech.com/> http://www.nvirocleantech.com

 

-------Original Message-------

 

From: Sean K. Barry <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 

Date: 2007.12.09. 7:19:41

To: Edward Someus <mailto:edward at terrenum.net> ;  Nikolaus Foidl <mailto:nfoidl at desa.com.bo> ;  Gerald Van Koeverden <mailto:vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca> 

Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org

Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization --------- Char Hydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters

 

Hi Edward,

 

I've read what you said here and it brings me to ask a question.  The original makers of Terra Preta soil in the Amazon did not have the kind of tools that you have to make charcoal.  Clearly, they (all of them) could not have come up with the same "innovative carbonization thermal process" that you have developed.  So, the question I have for you is ... "How could they have may charcoal suitable for TP and what process did they use?"  They are the only ones who actually did succeed (provably so) in making Terra Preta soils work.  And another question I have for you ... Are you absolutely sure that the residual tars left on conventional low temperature charcoal are toxic to all living things; toxic to all animals, plants, and/or all soil microorganisms? 

 

Regards,

 

SKB

----- Original Message -----

From: Edward <mailto:edward at terrenum.net>  Someus

To: Nikolaus <mailto:nfoidl at desa.com.bo>  Foidl ; Gerald Van Koeverden <mailto:vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca>  ; Sean <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>  K. Barry

Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org

Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 11:42 PM

Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization --------- Char Hydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters

 


TECHNICAL NOTICE ===== Char Hydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters 

 

It is depending on process conditions. Usually the low efficient thermal processes are leaving high % organic residuals (hydrophobic tars) behind,  which makes them unsuitable for TP. Most chars are for energy (where tar residuals are positively utilized) , not only because it is higher priced, but these hydrophobic chars are not suitable for soil application, not to talk about the tar residuals high toxicity for soil life.

 

My char I am producing is hydrophilic as my innovative carbonization thermal process has been specifically developed for soil adaptation application. 

 

 


Sincerely yours: Edward Someus (environmental engineer)
Terra Humana Clean Tech Ltd. (ISO 9001/ISO 14001)

3R Environmental Technologies Ltd. 
ADDRESS: H-1222 Budapest, Szechenyi 59, Hungary
TEL handy:  +(36-20) 201 7557
TEL / FAX:   +(36-1) 424 0224
TEL SKYPE phone via computer:  Edward Someus
3R TERRACARBON:   http:// <http://www.terrenum.net > www.terrenum.net 

3R CLEANCOAL ENERGY:  <http://www.nvirocleantech.com/> http://www.nvirocleantech.com

 

-------Original Message-------

 

From: Sean K. Barry <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 

Date: 2007.12.09. 6:22:14

To: Nikolaus Foidl <mailto:nfoidl at desa.com.bo> ;  Gerald Van <mailto:vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca>  Koeverden

Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org

Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. carbonization

 

Hi Gerrit,

 

Charcoal is hydorphobic.  Charcoal is inert and does not alone absorb nutrients.

 

Regards,

 

SKB

----- Original Message -----

From: Gerald Van Koeverden <mailto:vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca> 

To: Nikolaus Foidl <mailto:nfoidl at desa.com.bo> 

Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org

Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 4:20 PM

Subject: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. carbonization

 

Nick,

 

I had to look up what torrefaction was:

 

"Torrefaction is mild pre-treatment of any biomass (including bamboo) at a temperature between

200 and 250° C. During torrefaction the properties of bamboo undergo changes, wherein the end

product has much better fuel quality compared to biomass for combustion application. The

decomposition reactions during this process results in bamboo becoming completely dry and

loose its tenacious structure, also the hygroscopic nature of the biomass is changed to

hydrophobic material. Besides this, the process increases the calorific value of the end product.

The actual weight loss in this period would be about 20 to 25 % whereas 90 % of the energy of

the parent dry material is preserved in the torrefied matter. The combustion process of this matter

has less problematic volatiles and hence the process is closer to that of charcoal. It can therefore

be used as an alternate to charcoal in many applications. It also makes the material immune to

attack by fungi. Hence long term storage without degradation is possible."

 

Based on 15 minutes of research, it doesn't look promising.  It would seem that this super-drying of wood makes it hydrophobic...and if it stays that dry in the soil, it would be difficult for nutrients to move through a soil solution into it.  Moreover, it doesn't sound like it is conducive for a 'fungal' bridge between itself as a microhabit for microrganisms with the soil;  in char mixed with composting material, the char actually becomes a microhabit for fungus...

However, this is only speculation.

 

How closely have you examined the torrefied wood you have found in the soil?  Does it 'house' microrganisms?  Has it absorbed soil nutrients?  Or is it merely an inert material taking up space?

 

gerrit

 

 

 

On 8-Dec-07, at 2:21 PM, Nikolaus Foidl wrote:

 

Dear all!

 

My charcoal costs at a charring efficiency of 42 % is around 35 US$ per ton

Charcoal. Now after analyzing 15 year old soil where huge amounts of forest

where simply burned and charred. Now excavating I find huge amounts of only

torrefied wood pieces which as well did not degrade, like the charcoal

chunks.

Now looking at this and if torrefied wood would do the same as is charcoal,

why not save a huge amount of additional CO2 and just torrefy the stuff and

mill it and then burry it? Cost per ton would drop to half, CO2 taken out of

the atmosphere rise by 50 to 70 %.

Just an idea but maybe worth to be discussed.

Best regards Nikolaus

 

 

 

_______________________________________________

Terrapreta mailing list

Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/

http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org

http://info.bioenergylists.org


_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org

 


			

 


			

 

 


		

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071210/f68a704c/attachment-0001.html