Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41162543›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Agricultural potential and safety assessment of biochar obtained from river biomass.

Elena Riva, Maria Chiara Rosace, Biagio Rimmaudo, Cristina Menta, Giovanna Visioli, Alessio Malcevschi, Annamaria Buschini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Elena Riva *Department of Chemistry, Life Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, University of Parma, Viale delle Scienze 11/A, Parma, 43124, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3930-4573
Maria Chiara Rosace *Department of Chemistry, Life Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, University of Parma, Viale delle Scienze 11/A, Parma, 43124, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7263-8228
Biagio Rimmaudo *Department of Chemistry, Life Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, University of Parma, Viale delle Scienze 11/A, Parma, 43124, Italy.
Cristina MentaDepartment of Chemistry, Life Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, University of Parma, Viale delle Scienze 11/A, Parma, 43124, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6680-6424
Giovanna VisioliDepartment of Chemistry, Life Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, University of Parma, Viale delle Scienze 11/A, Parma, 43124, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9712-3223
Alessio MalcevschiDepartment of Chemistry, Life Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, University of Parma, Viale delle Scienze 11/A, Parma, 43124, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9035-5865
Annamaria BuschiniDepartment of Chemistry, Life Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, University of Parma, Viale delle Scienze 11/A, Parma, 43124, Italy. annamaria.buschini@unipr.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9877-2767

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biochar, a carbon-rich residue produced by controlled biomass decomposition in oxygen-deprived conditions, like pyrolysis or gasification, has gained attention as a soil enhancer for improving fertility and sequestering carbon. In this study, we analyzed a biochar produced from woody and herbaceous biomasses resulting from river cleaning operations. The potential impacts of biochar on fauna and flora were evaluated through tests on two soil invertebrates (Folsomia candida and Eisenia fetida/E. andrei) and several agricultural plant species. Toxicological assessments included the Ames test using Salmonella typhimurium; the Comet Assay, conducted on Cucumis sativus, Cichorium endivia, Lactuca sativa, Lepidium sativum, Sorghum saccharatum; and the MTS assay, performed on various human cell lines. Results showed that biochar did not negatively impact the collembolans or earthworms' survival, even at high concentrations. However, reproductive capacity declined significantly at concentrations above 2%. In plant assays, higher concentrations generally inhibited growth, while lower concentrations (1% to 2%) commonly used in agriculture promoted root elongation and, in some cases, increased germination rates. No harmful effects were detected in Ames test or in the cytotoxicity assay on human cell lines. Biochar did not negatively affect plant species survival or cause DNA damage, making it suitable as an agricultural soil conditioner.

Indexed as

AgricultureCharcoalRiversAnimalsBiomassCell LineHumansOligochaetaSalmonella typhimuriumbiocharCharcoalAmes testComet assayEcotoxicity testMTS assayRoot germinationToxicological tests

Identifiers

PMID41162543
PMCPMC12572279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.