ArticleScientific reports2026
Productivity evaluation, multi-scale characterisation, and safety assessment of biochar derived from green and woody agricultural biomass in Qatar.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Qatar produces approximately 2 million tons of agricultural biomass waste annually. Less than 20% is currently recycled or valorized, mainly through limited composting, landfilling, and, in some cases, open burning. This study presents a systematic production and multi-scale characterization of biochar derived from local mixed green agricultural waste (GAGW) and woody agricultural waste (WAGW), providing a characterization-based foundation to inform their potential integration into the energy-water-food (EWF) nexus of arid regions. Each feedstock was analyzed for moisture content (MC), volatile matter (VM), ash content, fixed carbon (FC), elemental composition (C, H, N, S), molar ratios (H/C, O/C), structural, elemental, morphological, thermal combustion and specific surface area properties. The experimental design follows a double-split arrangement. GAGW and WAGW were considered as the main plots, pyrolysis temperature (300, 400, 500, and 600 °C) as the sub-main plots, and residence time (20, 60, 90, and 120 min) as the sub-sub plots. Results demonstrate a fundamental divergence in carbonization pathways. WAGW achieved a peak solid yield of 71.28% at 300 °C in 20 min, significantly outperforming GAGW (60%). As thermal severity increased to 600 °C, WAGW underwent superior structural development, reaching a specific surface area of 684 m
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.