Sie können Operatoren mit Ihrer Suchanfrage kombinieren, um diese noch präziser einzugrenzen. Klicken Sie auf den Suchoperator, um eine Erklärung seiner Funktionsweise anzuzeigen.
Findet Dokumente, in denen beide Begriffe in beliebiger Reihenfolge innerhalb von maximal n Worten zueinander stehen. Empfehlung: Wählen Sie zwischen 15 und 30 als maximale Wortanzahl (z.B. NEAR(hybrid, antrieb, 20)).
Findet Dokumente, in denen der Begriff in Wortvarianten vorkommt, wobei diese VOR, HINTER oder VOR und HINTER dem Suchbegriff anschließen können (z.B., leichtbau*, *leichtbau, *leichtbau*).
Dieser Artikel geht auf das Potenzial des Kohlenstoffs aus der Methanplasmalyse (CMP) als Bodenverbesserung ein und hebt seinen einzigartigen Produktionsprozess als Nebenprodukt der Wasserstofferzeugung hervor. Der Text untersucht die unterschiedlichen Eigenschaften von CMP, einschließlich seiner hohen Reinheit und seines geringen Schadstoffgehalts, und vergleicht es mit anderen Kohlenstoffmaterialien wie Biokohle und Ruß. Der Artikel präsentiert Ergebnisse einer umfassenden Studie, die ein Treibhausexperiment und einen Feldversuch über mehrere Saisons umfasst und die positiven Auswirkungen von CMP auf das Pflanzenwachstum, die Nährstoffaufnahme und die mikrobielle Aktivität aufzeigt. Außerdem werden die Mechanismen diskutiert, die diesen Vorteilen zugrunde liegen, und es geht um Sicherheit, Standards und verantwortungsvolle Skalierung. Der Artikel kommt zu dem Schluss, dass CMP zu einem praktischen Instrument zur Verbesserung der Bodengesundheit und Stärkung der industriell-landwirtschaftlichen Wertschöpfungsketten werden könnte, vorausgesetzt, dass von Anfang an verantwortungsvolle Zertifizierungs- und Entscheidungsregeln für die Landwirtschaft umgesetzt werden.
KI-Generiert
Diese Zusammenfassung des Fachinhalts wurde mit Hilfe von KI generiert.
Abstract
The utilisation of carbon materials as soil amendments has seen a notable increase, with the aim of enhancing plant growth and facilitating carbon sequestration. Carbon from methane plasmalysis (CMP) may soon become widely available as a result of this hydrogen production process with low specific energy input. This study presents the initial evaluation of CMP’s properties and its effects on soil quality and plant growth. CMP was characterised as being of a purity level of ≥ 98% carbon (C), with a specific surface area of approximately 25.0 m2 g⁻1. In a greenhouse experiment, the application of CMP (wCMP = 0.1–1%) as a soil amendment to three Austrian soils with contrasting pH resulted in enhanced Zea mays biomass, chlorophyll content, and nutrient uptake, particularly under slightly acidic conditions and even at the lowest rate (0.1%). A 29-month field trial was conducted in order to confirm the positive effects of CMP under real-world conditions. This trial revealed increases in plant-available phosphorus (+ 60% at 11 months) and microbial activity (+ 25% at 25 months; + 15% at 29 months). The present study demonstrates that CMP has the potential to function as a beneficial soil amendment, with its effectiveness subject to variation depending on soil and site-specific conditions.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
1 Why “Carbon in the Field” Is a Serious Topic
Across Europe, agriculture is under pressure from multiple directions. Soils are losing functionality through erosion, declining organic matter, and nutrient imbalances, while climate extremes increasingly amplify yield variability. As a result, soil health has shifted from a long-term sustainability goal into an immediate risk. Global assessments and European syntheses emphasize that land degradation and declining soil functions are already affecting productivity and resilience, making restoration and improved management essential for future food security [1‐5].
At the same time, the fertilizer and soil amendment landscape are evolving. Current debates on critical raw materials highlight Europe’s dependency risks for key inputs [6], while efficiency strategies are increasingly viewed as both an economic and environmental necessity [7]. In this context, carbon-based soil amendments have attracted renewed attention for their potential to address multiple bottlenecks simultaneously, including nutrient retention, soil structure, water holding capacity, microbial functioning, and greenhouse-gas mitigation [8‐11].
Anzeige
Biochar is the best-known example, but the category of “carbon amendments” extends beyond it to include engineered carbons with distinct surface chemistry and morphology. The focus has shifted from whether carbon materials affect soils to determining which carbon types, produced by which processes, are suitable for which soil-crop system, and whether benefits observed under greenhouse conditions translate to field-scale performance [8, 12, 13].
2 Methane Plasmalysis: Turning a Hydrogen Pathway into an Additional Carbon Source
Hydrogen strategies aim to decarbonize industrial energy and feedstocks. However, many near-term hydrogen pathways still rely on methane, from natural gas or potentially biogas. Methane pyrolysis/plasmalysis is technically attractive because it can produce hydrogen with substantially reduced energy input (∆H = 37.7 kJ mol−1) as compared to water electrolysis (∆H = 286 kJ mol−1) while also avoiding direct CO2 formation during conversion (Fig. 1; [14]). Carbon is separated as a solid product rather than oxidized [14, 15], providing an effective approach to produce nano-/micro-structured carbon powders alongside hydrogen [16].
Fig. 1
Schematic of hydrogen and carbon production using methane plasmalysis. CMP = carbon from methane plasmalysis [14]
In this context, carbon from methane plasmalysis (CMP) has emerged as a novel, high-purity carbon material that could become available at increasing scale if methane-to-hydrogen conversion expands [14, 17]. European and Austrian policy frameworks on climate neutrality and long-term energy transitions explicitly recognize pathways where such cross-sector coupling (energy—materials—land systems) can be materialized [18, 19]. Industry narratives around hydrogen similarly stress the need for robust utilization chains for co-products [20].
3 What Makes CMP Different from Biochar or Carbon Black?
(i) Purity and Contaminants
A recurring concern for carbon amendments is the inadvertent introduction of contaminants, including trace metal(loid)s, persistent organics, or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), especially when feedstocks are variable or contaminated [21]. For biochar specifically, PAHs are frequently discussed because they strongly depend on feedstock and production conditions and can vary widely [22]. In the first comprehensive characterization of CMP as a soil amendment, the material was described as highly pure (w ≥ 98% C). Importantly for agronomic deployment, measured contaminants, including PAHs, were far below stringent biochar certification thresholds; reported PAHs (sum of 16 EPA PAHs) were extremely low (w < 0.4 mg kg⁻1), notably below typical biochar ranges cited in the same context [17, 22, 23].
Anzeige
(ii) Surface Area, Porosity, and Reactivity
Carbon amendments often work through surfaces: adsorption sites, pore networks, and micro-habitats for microbes. Reviews show that biochar performance frequently correlates with surface area/porosity, which can be engineered and varies substantially by production route [8, 9]. CMP was characterized with a specific surface area of about 25 m2 g−1 (which is at the lower end of biochar) and micrometer-scale particle size. Consequently, CMP is engineered enough to potentially present reactive surfaces, but not necessarily as highly porous as some biochars [9, 17].
(iii) CMP Vs Carbon Black
Discussions sometimes conflate different elemental carbon materials (soot/black carbon/carbon black, engineered nanocarbons, biochar, and now CMP). Yet physical and chemical distinctions matter for risk and function [24]. CMP should be treated as its own class: a methane-derived carbon material with distinct morphology and purity profile, and not necessarily equivalent to industrial carbon black in terms of exposure pathways or agronomic performance [17, 24].
4 Evidence Base: the First CMP Agronomy Study
A common limitation of many soil amendment studies is their reliance on pot trials or laboratory indicators that do not translate to yield under field conditions. The presented CMP study is notable in this regard as it combined material characterization, a controlled greenhouse experiment, and a multi-season field trial [17].
In a greenhouse experiment with three soils spanning acidic (pH ~4.6), near-neutral/slightly acidic (pH ~6.5), and alkaline (pH ~7.9) conditions, CMP additions (w = 0.1–1%) improved maize biomass, chlorophyll, and nutrient uptake, with the clearest benefits in the slightly acidic soil and detectable effects even at the lowest application rate (Fig. 2). In the alkaline soil, a high rate (1%) slightly reduced biomass and nutrient uptake, consistent with right material—right soil—right dose principle and broadly aligned with pH-dependent nutrient constraints [17, 25]. Chlorophyll measurements matter here because they provide a fast readout of nutrient status (especially N and sometimes Mg/Fe interactions), making them useful in both controlled trials and field monitoring [17].
Fig. 2
Photograph of selected maize plants after six weeks of growth in pots filled with slightly acidic soil treated with CMP at amendment rates of 0.1–2.5% (defined as CMP mass fraction of the total soil mass). Pots filled with soil only (no CMP amendment) were included as controls. In addition, pots filled with soil treated with biochar at an amendment rate of 1.0% were included for comparison. Detailed methodological procedures and results of the greenhouse experiment are provided in Abu Zahra et al. [17]
4.2 Field Trial (29 Months; Multiple Crops and Seasons)
The field trial was conducted for 29 months at an experimental site in Austria (Fig. 3) and covered three growing seasons: maize, spring wheat, then maize again, which allowed both initial and persistent effects to be assessed [17]. Under real-world management and fertilization, CMP at the tested site produced measurable soil improvements even though biomass yield was not significantly changed:
Plant-available phosphorus: reported as + 60% after 11 months [17].
Microbial activity: reported as + 25% after 25 months and + 15% after 29 months [17].
Fig. 3
Location and photographs of the field trial in Austria (AT). The photographs show a an aerial image of the experimental plots either treated with CMP at an amendment rate of 1% or without CMP (control) in the topsoil, and b maize growth on the plots in the first growing season in 2022. Detailed methodological procedures and results of the field trial are provided in Abu Zahra et al. [17]
Microbial activity was assessed via fluorescein diacetate (FDA) hydrolysis, a widely used proxy for overall enzymatic activity in soils [26]. Plant-available nutrients were measured via established soil extraction procedures [27], which is important for comparability with agronomic advisory frameworks.
5 Mechanisms: How Could CMP Influence These Results?
The empirical results above naturally raise questions about the mechanisms underlying the observed effects.
1.
Adsorption and nutrient retention.
2.
Carbon surfaces can adsorb dissolved organics and influence nutrient dynamics. In biochar systems, changes in dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and nutrient mobility have been observed and linked to surface interactions [28]. Increased retention can reduce leaching and increase plant availability under certain conditions [10, 11].
3.
Habitat and microbial functioning.
4.
Surface area and microstructure can create microbial niches and shift activity. This corresponds to a standard interpretation in biochar literature and is consistent with the observed activity increases under CMP application [9, 17, 26].
5.
Soil physical properties and water relations.
6.
Porous carbon materials can affect water holding and aggregation. Biochar studies show that porosity and surface properties matter strongly for water retention [9]. More broadly, soil amendments can influence hydrophysical properties and thus stress buffering, although the magnitude is site-dependent [29].
7.
pH-mediated nutrient availability.
8.
Even modest shifts in pH microenvironments can influence nutrient availability, especially for P and micronutrients [25, 30]. That is consistent with the observation that CMP benefits were clearer in slightly acidic soils and less favorable at high dose in alkaline soil [17].
6 Safety, Standards, and Responsible Scaling
For any carbon amendment proposed for widespread field use, risk management must be considered. The term “carbon powder” might be interpreted by the public as soot or industrial dusts and waste deposition. Therefore, the following points have to be assessed carefully:
1.
Contaminant control needs to be demonstrated. For biochar and related materials, contaminant risk is linked to feedstock and process conditions [21]. The CMP study reports very low PAHs compared to common biochar values and low trace metal(loid) burdens relative to strict thresholds, suggesting an intrinsically favorable purity profile for methane-derived carbon [17, 22, 23].
2.
Measurement standards enable comparability across sites and products. Soil pH and nutrient extraction are sensitive to method choice; standardized procedures (e.g., national standards for pH and plant-available P/K extraction) are essential when translating research outcomes into advisory practice [27, 31]. Analytical measurements require common standards (e.g. European Biochar Certificate).
3.
Site specificity must be a major part of the investigation. The CMP data already shows soil-dependent outcomes (benefit in slightly acidic soil; small negative effect at high dose in alkaline soil) [17]. Decision rules must be based on soil diagnostics (pH, texture, carbonate status, baseline nutrient constraints) [25, 32].
7 Value Creation and Value Chain: Where the Money (and Resilience) Could Come from
For biochar, economics remains a bottleneck. Reviews and market analyses emphasize that costs can be high, and viability depends on feedstock availability, energy integration, credit markets, and product pricing [13, 33]. CMP changes the framing in one crucial way: it is not produced for agriculture; it is produced as a co-product of hydrogen generation. That opens a different value chain logic:
Primary driver: hydrogen production (energy/industrial decarbonization) [18, 19].
Co-product: solid carbon (CMP).
Upgrading: pelletization/handling to meet agricultural logistics and reduce dusting risks [17].
Agricultural value: improved nutrient efficiency (e.g., increased plant-available P), improved microbial activity, potential yield stability; especially if benefits persist over multiple seasons [7, 17].
System value: potential contribution to carbon management if application routes are responsibly validated, aligning with broader negative-emission discussions in carbon management [34].
These value chain considerations also help to explain why certification frameworks are important. Even if CMP is intrinsically low in contaminants, farmers and advisors need transparent specifications, and regulators need clear categories to distinguish methane-derived carbon from other carbon materials [24].
8 Outlook: from Trials to Farming Systems
The CMP evidence base is early but unusually comprehensive for a new amendment class as it includes real field seasons, rather than pot trials alone [17]. The next steps toward credible scaling include:
Dose-response curves across soil classes and management regimes (e.g. pH, carbonate, texture, organic matter).
Integration with fertilizer strategies, especially for P, where availability is system-dependent [7, 30].
Long-term monitoring of soil carbon fractions, mobility of carbon in soil, nutrient cycling indicators, and potential unintended effects [21, 35].
Operational deployment: pellet stability, spreading equipment compatibility, and dust control; factors essential for farm acceptance [17].
9 Conclusion
Carbon from methane plasmalysis (CMP) represents a new class of carbon-based soil amendments that is tightly coupled to the hydrogen transition. The first integrated assessment indicates that CMP is high-purity, low in PAHs and inorganic contaminants, and can deliver agronomically relevant benefits as indicated by (1) notably improved maize performance in controlled trials under suitable soil conditions and (2) measurable field-scale increases in plant-available P and microbial activity over multiple seasons [17, 22, 23].
The effectiveness of CMP is evidently soil-dependent and therefore manageable through diagnostics and targeted application, especially with pH as a guiding variable [25]. If CMP supply grows alongside hydrogen, and if responsible certification and agronomic decision rules are built in from the start, CMP could become a practical soil-health tool that also strengthens industrial-agricultural value chains [13, 18].
Acknowledgements
RAG Austria is acknowledged for the support of this work.
Conflict of interest
T. Prohaska, N. Abu Zahra, R. Obenaus-Emler and S. Wagner declare that they have no competing interests.
Open Access Dieser Artikel wird unter der Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International Lizenz veröffentlicht, welche die Nutzung, Vervielfältigung, Bearbeitung, Verbreitung und Wiedergabe in jeglichem Medium und Format erlaubt, sofern Sie den/die ursprünglichen Autor(en) und die Quelle ordnungsgemäß nennen, einen Link zur Creative Commons Lizenz beifügen und angeben, ob Änderungen vorgenommen wurden. Die in diesem Artikel enthaltenen Bilder und sonstiges Drittmaterial unterliegen ebenfalls der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz, sofern sich aus der Abbildungslegende nichts anderes ergibt. Sofern das betreffende Material nicht unter der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz steht und die betreffende Handlung nicht nach gesetzlichen Vorschriften erlaubt ist, ist für die oben aufgeführten Weiterverwendungen des Materials die Einwilligung des jeweiligen Rechteinhabers einzuholen. Weitere Details zur Lizenz entnehmen Sie bitte der Lizenzinformation auf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification: Land Restoration for Recovery and Resilience (2022)
2.
Cherlet, M., Hutchinson, C., Reynolds, J., Hill, J., Sommer, S., von Maltitz, G. (eds.): World Atlas of Desertification. Publications Office (2018). https://doi.org/10.2760/9205CrossRef
Bindraban, P.S., van der Velde, M., Ye, L., van den Berg, M., Materechera, S., Kiba, D.I., Tamene, L., Ragnarsdóttir, K.V., Jongschaap, R., Hoogmoed, M., Hoogmoed, W., van Beek, C., van Lynden, G.: Assessing the impact of soil degradation on food production. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(5), 478–488 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.09.015CrossRef
6.
European Commission. (2017). Study on the review of the list of Critical Raw Materials.
Tomczyk, A., Sokołowska, Z., Boguta, P.: Biochar physicochemical properties: pyrolysis temperature and feedstock kind effects. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology 19, 191–215 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-020-09523-3CrossRef
9.
Leng, L., Xiong, Q., Yang, L., Li, H., Zhou, Y., Zhang, W., Jiang, S., Li, H., Huang, H.: An overview on engineering the surface area and porosity of biochar. Sci Total Environ 763, 144204 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144204CrossRef
Campion, L., Bekchanova, M., Malina, R., Kuppens, T.: The costs and benefits of biochar: A systematic review. Energy and Environmental Science (2023). https://doi.org/10.1039/D2EE03590ACrossRef
14.
Sánchez-Bastardo, N., Schlögl, R., Ruland, H.: Methane pyrolysis for zero-emission hydrogen production: A potential bridge technology from fossil fuels to a renewable and sustainable hydrogen economy. Ind Eng Chem Res 60(32), 11855–11881 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01679CrossRef
15.
Obenaus-Emler, R., Lehner, M., Michelic, S.K., Antrekowitsch, H.: Fokus Methanpyrolyse – Sektorübergreifende Transformation mit emissionsarmem Wasserstoff und Klimawandelanpassung mit festem Kohlenstoff. Berg Huttenmannische Monatshefte 170(4), 199–210 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00501-025-01582-7CrossRef
Abu Zahra, N., Wagner, S., Puschenreiter, M., Bandoniene, D., Fernández Balado, C., Hood-Nowotny, R., Obenaus-Emler, R., Soja, G., Kainz, M., Prohaska, T.: The Potential of Carbon from Methane Plasmalysis as a Soil Amendment. J Environ Manage 398, 128388 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.128388CrossRef
18.
European Commission: Going climate-neutral by 2050 – A strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate-neutral economy (2019)
19.
Federal Ministry for Sustainability and Tourism. (2019). Long-Term Strategy 2050 – Austria.
20.
Graforce GmbH. (2022). Hydrogen – the key to a CO2-neutral economy.
Fabbri, D., Rombolà, A.G., Torri, C., Spokas, K.A.: Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in biochar and biochar amended soil. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 103, 60–67 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2012.10.003CrossRef
23.
Ithaka Institute: European Biochar Certificate – Richtlinien für die Zertifizierung von Pflanzenkohle (Version 10.3) (2023)
24.
Long, C.M., Nascarella, M.A., Valberg, P.A.: Carbon black vs. black carbon and other airborne materials containing elemental carbon: Physical and chemical distinctions. Environ Pollut 181, 271–286 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.06.009CrossRef
Austrian Standards Institute: Chemical analysis of soils – Determination of “plant available” phosphorus and potassium by calcium acetate lactate (CAL) extraction (2012)
28.
Brandstetter, A., Sletten, R.S., Mentler, A., Wenzel, W.W.: Estimating dissolved organic carbon in soils by UV absorbance (DOCI) and its relevance to ecological soil studies. European Journal of Soil Science 47(3), 319–324 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1996.tb01401.xCrossRef
Andersson, K.O., Tighe, M.K., Guppy, C.N., Milham, P.J., McLaren, T.I.: The release of phosphorus in alkaline vertic soils as influenced by pH and by anion and cation sinks. Geoderma 264, 17–27 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.10.001CrossRef
31.
Austrian Standards Institute: Chemical soil analyses. Determination of the acidity (pH value) (1999)
32.
Oshunsanya, S.O.: Soil pH and its effect on soil fertility and plant growth. In: Soil pH for Nutrient Availability and Crop Performance (2018)
33.
Trapero, J.R., Alcazar-Ruiz, A., Dorado, F., Sanchez-Silva, L.: Biochar price forecasting: A novel methodology for enhancing market stability and economic viability. J Environ Manage 347, 119024 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119024CrossRef
34.
Deng, X., Teng, F., Chen, M., Du, Z., Wang, B., Li, R., Wang, P.: Exploring negative emission potential of biochar: A global life cycle assessment perspective. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 190, 114022 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.114022CrossRef
35.
DINMedia: Investigation of solids – Temperature-dependent differentiation of total organic carbon (TOC). (DIN 19539) (2016)
Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.
