Environmental Pollution xxx (2011) 1e8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Pollution
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envpol

Amending greenroof soil with biochar to affect runoff water quantity and quality
Deborah A. Beck, Gwynn R. Johnson, Graig A. Spolek*
Portland State University, Mechanical and Materials Engineering, POB 751, Portland, OR 97207, United States
In this controlled laboratory experiment, greenroof soil was amended by the addition of biochar, which reduced the water runoff
concentration of nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic carbon.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Numbers of greenroofs in urban areas continue to grow internationally; so designing greenroof soil to
Received 16 August 2010 reduce the amount of nutrients in the stormwater runoff from these roofs is becoming essential. This
Received in revised form study evaluated changes in extensive greenroof water discharge quality and quantity after adding bio-
22 December 2010
char, a soil amendment promoted for its ability to retain nutrients in soils and increase soil fertility.
Accepted 14 January 2011
Prototype greenroof trays with and without biochar were planted with sedum or ryegrass, with barren
soil trays used as controls. The greenroof trays were subjected to two sequential 7.4 cm/h rainfall events
Keywords:
using a rain simulator. Runoff from the rain events was collected and evaluated. Trays containing 7%
Greenroof
Biochar
biochar showed increased water retention and significant decreases in discharge of total nitrogen, total
Water quality phosphorus, nitrate, phosphate, and organic carbon. The addition of biochar to greenroof soil improves
Nitrogen both runoff water quality and retention.
Phosphorus Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In urban areas, greenroofs are perceived as a viable approach to
improve stormwater retention and reduce urban heat island effects.
As installations of greenroofs increase, care must be taken to assure
that greenroofs do not create unintended pollution. The very act of
putting soil on a roof necessitates a need for understanding the
water quality of the runoff from rainfall and excess irrigation. If
greenroofs are to provide an on-going benefit for urban environ-
ments, full understanding of potential runoff water pollution must
be understood and prevented.
Before examining the water quality of greenroofs, it is helpful to
understand how the water quality of runoff from greenroofs
compares to existing conventional roof runoff. Water quality
studies performed on the rainfall runoff of conventional roofs
reveal that the runoff is more polluted than one might think.
Rainwater flowing off conventional roofs has been shown to pick up
pollutants from both the roof substrate and from atmospheric
deposition, and to transport these pollutants off the rooftops
(Ammann et al., 2003; Van Metre and Mahler, 2003). Conventional
rooftop runoff has been shown to exceed drinking water guidelines
(Meera and Ahammed, 2006), and particle-bound contaminants in
runoff from conventional roofs are suspected to contribute to
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: graig@cecs.pdx.edu (G.A. Spolek).
sediment toxicity in receiving water bodies (Van Metre and Mahler,
2003). Metal rooftops have been shown to be a source of cadmium
and zinc, and asphalt shingles have been shown to be a source of
lead in rooftop runoff water (Thomas and Greene, 1993; Van Metre
and Mahler, 2003).
The water quality of runoff from greenroofs is typically thought
of as being of better quality than stormwater runoff from conven-
tional roofs. Notable exceptions are water-soluble nutrients such as
nitrogen and phosphorus. Metals have also been a concern
although several studies have reported conflicting amounts of
metals in analyzed runoff. A Canadian study comparing a large
greenroof to an adjoining shingled roof showed reduced storm-
water contaminants from the greenroof by mass, with the excep-
tion of calcium, magnesium, and total phosphorus, where
phosphorus was the only contaminant to pose a threat to receiving
waters (Van Seters et al., 2007). Another study comparing runoff
water quality of two rolled asphalt roofs to three greenroofs of
equal size, showed concentrations of phosphorous, potassium,
calcium, and magnesium in runoff from the greenroofs was higher
than from the non-vegetated flat roofs (Berghage et al., 2007). One
study of 66 greenroof models observed elevated levels of nitrate
from greenroofs compared to 4 conventional roofs (Retzlaff et al.,
2008). Buccola (2008) observed greenroof runoff to contain
increased levels of phosphorus, nitrate, and total suspended solids
compared to the source water used to create the runoff. Greenroof
runoff has been observed to have a yellow or tea color compared to
the source water creating the runoff. This yellow or tea color is

0269-7491/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.022

Please cite this article in press as: Beck, D.A., et al., Amending greenroof soil with biochar to affect runoff water quantity and quality, Envi-
ronmental Pollution (2011), doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.022
2 D.A. Beck et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2011) 1e8
suspected to be a result of humic acids in the runoff (Berghage et al.,
2007; Buccola, 2008).
The makeup of the soil used in the construction of greenroofs is
assumed to be the main cause of lower water quality in the runoff
(Hunt et al., 2006; Berghage et al., 2008; Teemusk and Mander,
2007; Van Seters et al., 2007; Retzlaff et al., 2008). Two main
nutrients of concern observed in greenroof runoff water are
phosphorus and nitrogen. Higher nitrogen and phosphorus
concentrations have been repeatedly observed in runoff from
greenroofs when compared to control roofs (Van Seters et al., 2007;
Hathaway et al., 2008; Retzlaff et al., 2008).
The leaching of phosphorus from greenroofs has been observed
to decrease significantly after one year, suggesting the nutrient is
most likely rapidly leached from the soil and levels would be
expected to increasingly drop over time (Van Seters et al., 2007).
Another study showed high nitrogen and phosphorus levels with
a dramatic reduction in concentration over a few months (Hunt
et al., 2006). These observations have led researchers to conclude
that the nutrient source deliberately added to greenroof soil matrix,
e.g., compost materials and fertilizers, are the main cause of
nutrient leaching in the runoff water (Hunt et al., 2006; Teemusk
and Mander, 2007; Van Seters et al., 2007; Retzlaff et al., 2008).
While this would lead to a demand for decreasing the initial
amount of nutrient source matter in a greenroof soil to decrease
leaching of nutrients (Hunt et al., 2006), a difficulty arises from the
necessity of providing plants enough nutrients for growth.
As both phosphorus and nitrogen are necessary nutrients for
plant growth there is a need to find a delicate balance between
providing sufficient nutrients for healthy plant growth while
simultaneously reducing leaching of nutrients in the runoff. In
responding to this challenge, it has been suggested that soil
amendments able to retain nutrients would be a welcome addition
to the greenroof industry. The desired soil amendment would
prevent water-soluble nutrients from leaching into runoff while
ensuring these same nutrients remain available to plants on an “as
needed” basis. One soil amendment that may be able to meet these
demands in greenroof soil matrices is called biochar (Glaser et al.,
2002; Lehmann et al., 2003; Liang et al., 2006).
Biochar began to attract interest after researchers studying
dark-colored, fertile, and relic anthropogenic soils in the Amazon
found that the soil contained large amounts of pyrogenic carbon
(Glaser et al., 2000). The unusually high fertility of these soils is
attributed to the presence of this carbon and it is believed that
ancient civilizations deliberately tilled in charcoal (biochar) into
their fields (Glaser et al., 2000; Steiner et al., 2007). Biochar is made
by pyrolysis of biomass in low-oxygen, high-temperature envi-
ronments (Gaunt and Lehmann, 2008). The success of biochar in
ancient soils has prompted several studies to explore biochar’s
effect on soil fertility. One such study compared biochar to fertilizer
and manure when used as soil amendments and showed that the
addition of biochar reduced nitrogen leaching (Lehmann et al.,
2003). In addition, soil fertility was increased by the addition of
biochar as shown by positive effects on crop growth and nutrition.
Specifically, biochar additions of 10% by weight resulted in
improved plant growth and a significant increase in biomass
production (Lehmann et al., 2003).
When biochar is used as a soil additive, it resists microbial
breakdown and is thought to be stable for hundreds of years
(Lehmann et al., 2003). It may be of interest to note that biochar’s
ability to resist microbial breakdown has resulted in biochar being
explored as a long-term sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide
(Lehmann et al., 2006).
Use of biochar as a soil additive in greenroofs has some attrac-
tive advantages over other manufactured soil additives. The
method of production of biochar results in biochar being
Please cite this article in press as: Beck, D.A., et al., Amending greenroof soil with biochar to affect runoff water quantity and quality, Envi-
ronmental Pollution (2011), doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.022
a net-negative carbon product. The pyrolysis of biomass in a slow,
low-oxygen environment causes sequestration of the carbon con-
tained in the biomass instead of releasing that carbon into the
atmosphere. Addition of biochar to the soil, whether through
natural fire or from anthropogenic activity, has been shown to have
millennial-scale stability (Sohi et al., 2009). In addition to being
carbon net-negative, biochar is most often a byproduct of bio-
energy production rather than a product itself (Gaunt and
Lehmann, 2008). Use of biochar to retain nutrients would be an
environmentally preferable soil additive to a growing greenroof
industry. The large surface area and porous structure of biochar also
make it a water-absorbing soil additive. This water retention ability
could be of great benefit to plants trying to survive on the almost
desert climate of many greenroofs.
Biochar has been observed to have increased cation exchange
capacity when added to soils located in warm climates (Cheng et al.,
2008). The shallow soil and exposed conditions of most greenroofs
result in plants growing in almost desert-like conditions. The warm
conditions of these soils would be expected to have a positive effect
on the nutrient retention capability of biochar and potentially make
biochar an ideal addition to greenroof soils.
While most discussions of biochar as a soil additive have focused
on water quality, the effect on stormwater retention is also of
interest. Water retentive capabilities of green roofs have received
the attention of some research studies with widely varying results.
Carter and Rasmussen (2006) reported stormwater retention
performance for small test plots in Georgia exposed to natural rain
events spread over a year’s time. They measured that green roof
stormwater retention ranged from 39% to 100%, with an average
retention of about 78%. Testing of similarly-sized test plots in
central Michigan, VanWoert et al. (2005) measured about 61%
retention for vegetated roofs, when compared to 50% for planting
media- only plots and 27% for gravel ballast roofs exposed to the
same rainfall conditions. The somewhat lower retention rates were
ascribed to thinner media depth and loss of winter data due to
freezing outdoor conditions. In the mild and wet conditions of the
Pacific Northwest, Spolek (2008) measured the cumulative reten-
tion for three full-scale green roofs over a multi-year time frame
and recorded retention rates in the range of 12%e25%. These
retention rates are much lower than those previously listed, even
lower than that reported for gravel ballast roofs by VanWoert et al.
(2005), and probably due to the heavy winter rain in the Pacific
Northwest when evapotranspiration is minimal. Vastly different
stormwater retention rates arise when different green roofs are
exposed to widely varying weather and climatic conditions, making
it very difficult to assess the potential impact that a soil additive
such as biochar might have without carefully controlled
experiments.
The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects that
the addition of biochar to a greenroof soil would have on nutrient
retention and water retention. Nutrient retention was evaluated by
measuring concentrations of total nitrogen, nitrate, total phos-
phorus, and phosphate in the rainfall runoff from prototype
greenroofs. In addition, total organic carbon and inorganic carbon
concentrations were evaluated as another measure of greenroof
runoff water quality. Water retention was measured by comparing
discharge from controlled rain events.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Greenroof trays
Prototype greenroof trays were assembled from 61 cm
61 cm metal trays. Each
tray had a 2.54 cm diameter drain hole that directed all runoff into the capture
container. Trays were lined with Henry DB-50 greenroof drainage membrane. Soil in
the form of either Pro-Gro extensive mix (control), or Pro-Gro extensive mix
 D.A. Beck et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2011) 1e8
containing 7% weight by weight biochar, hereafter referred to as “biochar”, was
added to an initial depth of 15 centimeters. Pro-Gro extensive mix is a proprietary
blend specially designed as a green roof growing media that contains a mix of gravel,
sand, silt, clay, (Buccola, 2008) as well as specially screened pumice, Fiber Life
compost, and paper fiber. The biochar used in this study was a 300 series blend from
International Tech Corporation. The blend was 70.0% agricultural char, derived from
the processing of rice hulls, pecan shells, walnut shells, and coconut shells, and
30.0% manufactured waste char derived from pyrolysis of passenger car tires. The
biochar ranged in size from very fine powder to pebble-sized chunks. Previous
studies looked at biochar concentrations ranging from 3% to 20% w/w and showed
improved soil fertility (Lehmann et al., 2003; Rondon et al., 2007). Seven percent
biochar was chosen as a concentration in the middle of the range of previous studies
and to work with the limited supply of biochar available. Trays were planted with
sedum (Sedum hispanicum), ryegrass (Lolium perenne), or left unplanted as soil-only
controls. Two trays of each condition were made to allow for replication of
conditions.
Carbon filtered tap water was used for watering of plants and simulating rain-
water during testing. Planted trays were grown in a greenhouse and watered with
just enough water to allow the seeds or cuttings to grow. Up until testing, every
attempt was made to keep the trays from experiencing any drainage to allow for
simulating the initial release of nutrients experienced by a newly set-up greenroof.
Soil-only control trays received the same amount of water as the planted trays in
order to maintain the existing microbial communities in the soil.
2.2. Testing of greenroof trays
Each set of matching trays by plant and soil type were tested using the rain
simulator in the Green Roof Test and Design Unit (GERTY) built by the Greenroof Test
and Design Laboratory at Portland State University (Fig. 1) (Spolek et al., 2008).
GERTY was utilized to simulate rainfall and to collect rainfall runoff, as well as to
continuously weigh trays during rainfall events.
The rainfall simulator consisted of drip irrigation nozzles suspended from a wire
grid positioned 33 cm above the top of the trays. The rainfall simulator had 72
nozzles, with 36 nozzles positioned over each tray. An eccentric drive motor moved
the water distribution system to deliver uniform rainfall coverage.
Two rainfall events were performed on each set of matching trays. The first
rainfall event (Run A) consisted of running the rainfall simulator for 30 min at
7.4 cm/h. Water samples for nitrogen and phosphorus testing were collected from
every liter of rainfall runoff per tray. Water samples for total organic carbon samples
were taken every other liter of runoff for sedum and soil-only trays, and every liter of
runoff for ryegrass trays. Sample collection continued until rainfall runoff stopped or
two hours had passed. Two hours after starting Run A, the second rainfall event (Run
B) was performed using the same protocol as used for Run A. Two hours after
starting Run B, the test was declared finished.
2.3. Sample preservation and processing
Total carbon (TC), inorganic carbon (IC), and total organic carbon (TOC) were
determined in the collected runoff water samples using a Shimadzu TOC-V CSH total
organic carbon analyzer. Standard methods described in the Shimadzu TOC-V CSH
instruction manual were followed for TC, IC, and TOC analysis. A FIA 2500, a flow
injection analyzer, was used to determine concentrations of nitrate, phosphate, total
nitrogen, and total phosphorus in each collected runoff water sample. Samples
Fig. 1. Schematic of simulated rainfall and discharge equipment.
Please cite this article in press as: Beck, D.A., et al., Amending greenroof soil with biochar to affect runoff water quantity and quality, Envi-
ronmental Pollution (2011), doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.022
3
evaluated for phosphate and nitrate were processed using standard methods
described in the FIA 2500 instruction manual. Sample volumes not consumed for
nitrate and phosphate testing were preserved with acid in accordance with EPA
Method 365.2 and stored at 4  C until processing. Samples for total nitrogen and
total phosphorus were simultaneously digested in accordance to University of
Minnesota’s soil and water laboratory simultaneous digestion protocol (Owen et al.,
1992). Total dissolved solids were measured on a pH/conductivity/TDS meter. Sus-
pended sediment concentration was determined by evaporation as described in
Shreve and Downs (2005).
3. Results and discussion
Before the first rainfall event (Run A), soil moisture of all trays
was estimated to be low and the soil was not saturated. After Run A,
soil in each tray approached saturation, as evidenced by runoff
obtained during the first rainfall event. Hence, nutrient concen-
tration and mass results for Run A runoff water were representative
of how the soil would perform when unsaturated and results for
Run B were representative of how the soil would perform when
nearly saturated. Fig. 2 shows representative curves of the rainfall
onto the prototype trays and the runoff exiting the trays during
testing.
3.1. Nutrient retention
The overall effect of adding 7% biochar to the greenroof soil in
terms of nutrient retention was evaluated by comparing nutrient
concentrations of the rainfall runoff from the 6 trays containing
biochar to the 6 trays containing the control soil. From these six
replicates, all samples collected (117 samples from the biochar soil
and 116 samples from the control soil) are plotted on cumulative
distribution graph (Fig. 3) in order to see if biochar had a difference
in the concentrations of nutrients in the rainfall runoff. The 6 trays
containing biochar demonstrated increased retention of nitrate,
total nitrogen, phosphate, total phosphorus, and total organic
carbon compared to the control trays. Nutrient concentrations in
the rainfall runoff for all 12 trays were evaluated by examining the
cumulative distribution graphs of each nutrient. When viewing
a cumulative distribution graph it is important to note that shad-
owed or even overlapping values can still be from significantly
different populations. Bootstrap KolmogoroveSmirnov analysis
(Press et al., 1992; Sekhon, 2009) was performed on the distribu-
tions to determine significance of observed differences between
the two soil types. Data in Fig. 3 can be interpreted as being
a matched set taken under identical conditions except for the
addition of biochar. The greater the separation between the two
curves, the larger the effect.
3.2. Total organic carbon and inorganic carbon
Soil-only, sedum, and ryegrass trays, for both soil types, showed
decreasing amounts of total organic carbon as the rainfall events
Representative Curve of Rainfall on and Resulting Runoff
Run A Run B
500
Rainfall and Runoff (ml/min)
400
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (min)
Fig. 2. Rainfall onto trays and representative curve of runoff exiting trays during the
two rain events.
4 D.A. Beck et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2011) 1e8

Organic Carbon Nitrate Phosphate

200 300 35

180 Control

250 30
Biochar
160

140 25
200

120
20

mg/L
mg/L

mg/L
100 150

15
80
100
60
10

40
50
5
20

0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Fraction of Sample Fraction of Sample Fraction of Sample

Inorganic Carbon Total Nitrogen (Ryegrass only) Total Phosphorus

30 200 40

180
35
25
160
30
140
20
25
120
mg/L

mg/L
mg/L

15 100 20

80
15
10
60
10
40
5
5
20

0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Fraction of Sample Fraction of Sample Fraction of Sample

Fig. 3. Cumulative distribution graphs showing concentrations of nutrients as measured from all samples.

occurred. For both unsaturated (Run A) and saturated (Run B) trials,
concentrations of total organic carbon decreased as the rainfall
events continued and increased as soon as the rainfall event
stopped which may indicate that the process of total organic carbon
entering the soil porewater is rate-limited.
Soil-only trays released the highest concentrations of total
organic carbon. Ryegrass and sedum planted in the control soil
released equivalent concentrations of total organic carbon. Trays
with biochar released concentrations of total organic carbon
ranging from 15 to 51 mg/l verses the control trays that released
concentrations of total organic carbon ranging from 46 to 188 mg/l
(Fig. 3). Biochar showed a significant difference (P < 0.01) of the
amount of total organic carbon released into the rainfall runoff
when compared to the control soil. Biochar had a 67e72% reduction
of total organic carbon concentrations in the rainfall runoff from all
soil and plant trays (Table 1).
The higher concentrations of total organic carbon seen in the
control rainfall runoff samples help explain the differences in
turbidity seen between the control and biochar runoff samples. The
significant differences seen in the organic carbon concentrations of
the rainfall runoff of the two soils are also seen visually by
comparing color, or turbidity, of the rainfall runoff samples. This
visual difference in turbidity is seen in Fig. 4, where rainfall runoff
samples from control soil trays have a tea or brown color, and the
biochar rainfall runoff samples are almost clear.
Inorganic carbon concentrations, where inorganic carbon is
defined as carbonate or bicarbonate, in the runoff of all experi-
ments showed no significant difference (P ¼ 0.153) between the
control soil and biochar. As seen in Fig. 3 the presence of biochar in
the soil had no impact on the amount of inorganic carbon entering
the rainfall runoff.
3.3. Nitrate and total nitrogen
For all trays, biochar soil resulted in significantly decreased
nitrate levels in the rainfall runoff when compared to runoff
obtained from trays containing the control soil (Fig. 3). The nitrate
assay uncertainty analysis yielded an error of 1.0 mg/l for nitrate
concentrations. Trays with biochar released concentrations of
nitrate ranging from 0.4e56 mg/l verses trays with the control soil
that released concentrations of nitrate ranging from 10e273 mg/l
(Fig. 3). The split seen in the nitrate and total nitrogen graphs in
Fig. 3 are a result of testing matching trays with heterogeneous soil.
These matching trays released different levels of nutrients even
though both trays had been subjected to otherwise identical
conditions. The low P-values obtained from the bootstrap Kolmo-
goroveSmirnov analysis (P < 0.01) show that in spite of the
heterogeneity of the soil, the soil containing biochar showed
significant difference of nutrient concentrations in the runoff.
These variations of nitrogen concentrations from the mixed soil
would be expected in the field and the significant difference of
nitrate nutrient retention of the two soil types that was obtained in
spite of the split in the data, points to a robustness of the results.
When looking at nitrate reduction by plant and soil type, the
soil-only and ryegrass biochar trays released 79e97% less nitrate
into the runoff water then the soil-only and ryegrass control trays.

Please cite this article in press as: Beck, D.A., et al., Amending greenroof soil with biochar to affect runoff water quantity and quality, Envi-
ronmental Pollution (2011), doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.022
 D.A. Beck et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2011) 1e8 5

Table 1
Average concentrations and percent reduction of tested water quality parameters as released by soil and plant type.

Plant type Soil type Nitrate Phosphate Total phosphorus Total nitrogen Total organic Total inorganic
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) carbon (mg/L) carbon (mg/L)
Soil-only Control soil-only 178.0 19.8 22.1 n/a 139.8 17.4
Biochar soil-only 36.5 11.2 12.8 38.7 15.2
% Reduction 79 43 42 72 12

Sedum Control sedum 17.9 7.3 10.3 n/a 78.8 13.3

Biochar sedum 22.5 7.3 8.3 25.7 12.7
% Reduction 26 1 20 67 4

Ryegrass Control ryegrass 63.4 14.8 17.4 79.2 73.6 18.6

Biochar ryegrass 2.0 9.2 8.4 10.1 21.6 17.2
% Reduction 97 38 52 87 71 7

By contrast, trays planted with sedum exhibited similar averages of
nitrate release for both biochar trays and control trays. As the
cumulative distribution graphs shows no overlap of nitrate values,
it is not conclusive as to whether or not sedum may have some
normalizing effect on the release of nitrate.
Total nitrogen results were only valid for ryegrass rainfall runoff
samples due to all other samples being compromised for total
nitrogen analysis by acid-fixing of the samples. The total nitrogen
results collected from the trays planted with ryegrass show that
trays with biochar released significantly different total nitrogen
concentrations than trays containing the control soil (P < 0.01). The
ryegrass trays with biochar showed an 87% reduction of total
nitrogen entering the rainfall runoff.
3.4. Phosphate and total phosphorus
Biochar-amended soil released lower concentrations of phos-
phate than the control soil, although the differences between the
two soils were not as great as observed in the nitrate results.
Rainfall events occurring on soil approaching saturation (Run B)
showed steadily decreasing concentrations of phosphate and total
phosphorus as the rainfall event proceeded. Trays planted with
sedum released the smallest range of phosphate with concentra-
tions between 4.5 and 12.6 mg/l. The phosphate assay has an error
of 0.6 mg/l.
A comparison of all obtained phosphate concentration values for
both soil types reveals a reduction of phosphate in the rainfall
runoff from trays containing biochar-amended soil except when
sedum is planted in the trays. Analysis of the two phosphate curves
from the two different soil types (Fig. 3) yields a P-value of <0.01,
revealing that the two curves are significantly different from each
other.
The overlap of concentrations from both soil types below the
0.35 fraction of samples (Fig. 3) is of interest, even though this
overlap does not imply lack of significant difference between the
two soil types.
Sorting the phosphate samples by soil and plant type revealed
that the overlap of phosphate values seen below the 0.35 fraction of
samples were a result of the phosphate values released by the
control soil sedum trays. This overlap of concentrations suggests
that when sedum is present, the control soil can potentially
outperform biochar in terms of phosphate retention. Sedum
appears to take up or retain phosphate and total phosphorus from
both soil types. When sedum is not present, biochar reduced the
amount of phosphate present in the rainfall runoff by 38e48%.
Total phosphorus includes all elemental phosphorus including
phosphorus in the form of phosphate. The total phosphorus
concentrations in the runoff (Fig. 3) show that trays with biochar
released less total phosphorus than trays without biochar
(P < 0.01). The total phosphorus assay uncertainty analysis yielded
an error of 1.5 mg/l for total phosphorus concentrations. Biochar
trays had 20e52% reduction of total phosphorus in the runoff as
compared to the control trays.
3.5. Water retention
For each experiment, the change of weight for each set of
matching trays was recorded. Soil moisture content of the trays was
unknown when the rainfall event of Run A was started, causing the
change of weight readings for the two different soils to be incom-
parable against each other with validity for the first rainfall event.
The soil moisture content for each Run B though, was close to
saturation and the weight retention of water was comparable
between these events.
As shown in Table 2, the first rainfall event, Run A, the control
soil and biochar retained 19.3e32.9% of rainfall and 29.5e32.5% of
rainfall, respectively. For the second rainfall event, Run B, the
control soil retained 6.9e8.2% of rainfall and biochar retained

Fig. 4. Rainfall runoff samples from soil-only trays. Showing color difference between runoff samples collected from the control (samples 1e6), biochar soil (samples 7e11), and
source water (sample 12) (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.).

Please cite this article in press as: Beck, D.A., et al., Amending greenroof soil with biochar to affect runoff water quantity and quality, Envi-
ronmental Pollution (2011), doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.022
6 D.A. Beck et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2011) 1e8

Table 2
Percent of water retained by control soil and biochar-amended trays during controlled rainfall events.

Soil type Plant type Run % Added rainfall Run % Added rainfall Run % Added rainfall
retained by soil retained by soil retained by soil
Control Soil only Aa 32.2 B 6.9 Aa þ B 19.9
Sedum 19.3 7.1 13.1
Ryegrass 32.9 8.2 20.4
Average 28.3 7.4 17.8

Biochar Soil only Aa 29.5 B 14.5 Aa þ B 22.0

Sedum 29.6 12.6 21.2
Ryegrass 32.5 0.5 20.3
Average 30.5 11.8 21.1
a
Growth media was of unknown moisture content at beginning of the rain event.

Table 3
Total recovered mass of nutrients from rainfall runoff.

Plant Type Tray Nitrate (mg) Phosphate (mg) Total Phosphorus (mg) Total Organic Carbon (mg) Inorganic Carbon (mg) % Error
Soil only Control [1] 2957 399 453 3030 399 17.1
Control [2] 2956 292 317 1908 234
Biochar [1] 722 213 247 687 298 20
Biochar [2] 599 194 217 595 243

Sedum Control [1] 303 152 216 1436 288 2.5

Control [2] 404 144 199 1521 233
Biochar [1] 759 158 183 488 242 5.1
Biochar [2] 67 111 119 425 223

Ryegrass Control [1] 157 172 238 1024 257 23.3

Control [2] 2240 310 352 1236 322
Biochar [1] 13 166 151 395 335 12
Biochar [2] 63 197 182 439 345

Total Organic Carbon Phosphate Nitrate

4000 500 4000

3500 Control 450 3500

400
3000 Biochar 3000
350
2500 2500
300
mg
mg

mg

2000 250 2000

1500 200 1500

150
1000 1000
100
500 500
50
0 0 0
Control [P4] Control [P2] Control [P3] Control [P4] Control [P2] Control [P3] Control [P4] Control [P2] Control [P3]
Soil Only Sedum Ryegrass Soil Only Sedum Ryegrass Soil Only Sedum Ryegrass

Inorganic Carbon Total Phosphorus

500 600
450

400 500

350
400
300
mg

mg

250 300
200
200
150

100
100
50

0 0
Control [P4] Control [P2] Control [P3] Control [P4] Control [P2] Control [P3]
Soil Only Sedum Ryegrass Soil Only Sedum Ryegrass

Fig. 5. Mass of nutrients released by tray and soil type.

Please cite this article in press as: Beck, D.A., et al., Amending greenroof soil with biochar to affect runoff water quantity and quality, Envi-
ronmental Pollution (2011), doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.022
 D.A. Beck et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2011) 1e8
8.5e14.5% of rainfall water. On average, biochar soil retained more
rainfall water then control soil, with bio-char retaining an average
of 21.1% and control soil retaining an average of 17.8%. When the soil
approached saturation, the addition of 7% biochar resulted in a 4.4%
increase of water retention. This increased retention of biochar
under close-to-saturated conditions could have a noticeable effect
on storm-water retention ability as well as improving plant health
by holding excess water.
3.6. Total mass
Total mass was used to assess the overall impact of the runoff. If
rainfall retention and nutrient concentrations are both affected by
the presence of biochar, then the cumulative effect is reflected by
the product, yielding the total mass. Examination of total mass of
nutrients released into the runoff, summarized in Table 3, reveals
trays containing biochar decreased the total mass of nitrogen,
phosphorus, and total organic carbon in the rainfall runoff. Mass
results are calculated from collected volume measurements that
suffered from propagation of error due to collection problems. The
differences between control soil and biochar are most noticeable for
the soil-only trays as seen in Fig. 5. Control soil trays released
2956e2957 mg of nitrate while the biochar trays released
599e722 mg of nitrate. Biochar also released less phosphate than
the control trays, with control soil-only trays releasing 292e399 mg
of phosphate and biochar soil-only releasing 194e213 mg of phos-
phate. Comparison of the total mass results reveals that nitrogen
was released from the control soil and biochar in much higher
amounts than phosphorus. This should be considered a function of
the starting control soil and would be expected to vary depending
on initial soil parameters.
Recovered mass of total organic carbon showed large differ-
ences between the control soil and biochar. For control soil with
and without plants, mass of total organic carbon released into the
rainfall runoff ranged from 1024e3030 mg versus biochar, which
released 395e687 mg of total organic carbon. In contrast to total
organic carbon, mass of inorganic carbon released into the rainfall
runoff was similar for both soil types, with the control soil releasing
a range of 233e399 mg and biochar releasing 223e345 mg inor-
ganic carbon.
3.7. Total dissolved sentiment and suspended sediment
concentrations
Runoff samples from a control ryegrass tray and a biochar
ryegrass tray were evaluated to determine if the turbidity in the
samples was a result of total dissolved solids (TDS) or suspended
solids concentration (SSC). All samples showed roughly equal
concentrations of TDS, and both control and biochar had higher TDS
concentrations than SSC. Control rainfall runoff samples had much
higher values of SSC than biochar rainfall runoff samples, indicating
that biochar is effective at filtering out suspended solids.
4. Conclusion
Addition of 7% biochar by weight to the control soil resulted in
an improvement of the water quality of the rainfall runoff. These
improvements included: a decrease of nitrate, total nitrogen,
phosphorus, total phosphorus and organic carbon concentrations
entering into the rainfall runoff, increased water retention, and
reduced turbidity of rainfall runoff. Biochar-amended soil showed
a 67e72% reduction of total organic carbon in the rainfall runoff for
both soil-only and plant trays. The reduction of total organic carbon
in the rainfall runoff corresponded with a distinct visual difference
of turbidity in the collected rainfall runoff samples. Samples
Please cite this article in press as: Beck, D.A., et al., Amending greenroof soil with biochar to affect runoff water quantity and quality, Envi-
ronmental Pollution (2011), doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.022
7
recovered from the control soil were dark to medium tea-colored,
while samples collected from biochar were only slightly cloudy and
almost clear. Biochar runoff samples also had decreased levels of
suspended solids. Unlike total organic carbon, inorganic carbon
concentrations released into the rainfall runoff were not effected by
the presence of biochar in the soil. Addition of biochar to the soil
resulted in an approximate 4.4% increase in water retention by trays
containing close-to-saturated soil.
The prototype greenroof trays with biochar showed large
reductions of nitrate and total nitrogen release, ranging from
79e97%, for soil-only trays and trays planted with ryegrass. Sedum
planted trays had inconclusive nitrate retention results, although
apparent reductions were smaller than for soil-only or ryegrass.
Phosphorus results from trays planted with sedum indicate that
sedum interacted with both soils to cause a decrease of phosphorus
in the rainfall runoff regardless of soil type. When sedum was not
present, biochar reduced the amount of phosphate released into
the rainfall runoff by 38e43%. Release of total phosphorus
concentrations into the rainfall runoff water were also decreased
20e52% by the presence of biochar. Overall, the addition of biochar
to greenroof soil resulted in decreased nutrient concentrations in
the rainfall runoff, along with a slight increase in water retention.
Adding biochar to soil can be a way to improve downstream water
quality by reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic carbon
concentrations, decreasing turbidity in runoff, and reduce
discharge quantity. The effective lifespan of the biochar in terms of
nutrient retention in green roof applications was not investigated
in this study, but such knowledge would be of value.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Bureau of Environmental
Services, City of Portland, by Oregon BEST (Built Environment &
Sustainable Technologies) and by Portland State University.
References
Ammann, A., Hoehn, E., Koch, S., 2003. Ground water pollution by roof runoff
infiltration evidenced with multi-tracer experiments. Water Research (Oxford)
37, 1143e1153.
Berghage, R., Beattie, D., Jarrett, A., O’Connor, T., 2007. Greenroof runoff water
quality. In: Proceedings of the Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities,
Minneapolis, MN 2007.
Berghage, R., Wolf, A., Miller, C., 2008. Testing green roof media for nutrient content.
In: Proceedings of the Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, Balti-
more, MD 2008.
Buccola, N., 2008. A laboratory comparison of green roof runoff. A thesis submitted
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science in
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Portland State University, Portland, OR.
Carter, T., Rasmussen, T., 2006. Hydrological behavior of vegetated roofs. Journal of
the American Water Resources Association 42, 1261e1274.
Cheng, C.H., Lehmann, J., Engelhard, M.H., 2008. Natural oxidation of black carbon
in soils: changes in molecular form and surface charge along a climosequence.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 72, 1598e1610.
Gaunt, J., Lehmann, J., 2008. Energy balance and emissions associated with biochar
sequestration and pyrolysis bioenergy production. Environmental Science and
Technology 42, 4152e4158.
Glaser, B., Balashov, E., Haumaier, L., Guggenberger, G., Zech, W., 2000. Black carbon
in density fractions of anthropogenic soils of the Brazilian Amazon region.
Organic Geochemistry 31, 669e678.
Glaser, B., Lehmann, J., Zech, W., 2002. Ameliorating physical and chemical prop-
erties of highly weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal e a review. Biology
and Fertility of Soils 35, 219e230.
Hathaway, A., Hunt, W., Jennings, G., 2008. A field study of green roof hydrologic
and water quality performance. Transactions of the ASABE 51 (1), 37e44.
Hunt, W., Hathaway, A., Smith, J., Calabria, J., 2006. Choosing the right green roof
media for water quality. In: Proceedings of the Greening Rooftops for Sustainable
Communities, Boston, MA 2006.
Lehmann, J., Da Silva Jr., J., Steiner, C., Nehls, T., Zech, W., Glaser, B., 2003. Nutrient
availability and leaching in an archaeological Anthrosol and a Ferralsol of the
Central Amazon basin: fertilizer, manure and charcoal amendments. Plant and
Soil 249, 343e357.
8 D.A. Beck et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2011) 1e8
Lehmann, J., Gaunt, J., Rondon, M., 2006. Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial
ecosystems e a review. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
11, 403e427.
Liang, B., Lehmann, J., Solomon, D., Kinyangi, J., Grossman, J., O’Neill, B.,
Skjemstad, J., Thies, J., Luizão, F., Petersen, J., Neves, E., 2006. Black carbon
increases cation exchange capacity in soils. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 70, 1719e1730.
Meera, V., Ahammed, M., 2006. Water quality of rooftop rainwater harvesting
systems: a review. Water SRT e Aqua 55, 257e268.
Owen, C., Ameel, J., Axler, R., 1992. Total nitrogen and total phosphorus simultaneous
digestion. University of Minnesota soil and water laboratory. Web: <http://
swroc.cfans.umn.edu/soilandwater/lab/sop/tnandtp.pdf> (accessed 27.02.09).
Press, W., Teukolsky, S., Vetterling, W., Flannery, B., 1992. Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN
77 The Art of Scientific Computing, second ed. Cambridge University Press.
Retzlaff, W., Ebbs, S., Alsup, S., Morgan, E., Woods, V., Luckett, K., 2008. What is that
running off of my green roof?. In: Proceedings of the Greening Rooftops for
Sustainable Communities, Baltimore, MD 2008.
Rondon, M., Lehmann, J., Ramírez, J., Hurtado, M., 2007. Biological nitrogen fixation
by common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) increases with bio-char additions.
Biology and Fertility in Soils 43, 699e708.
Sekhon, J., 2009. Multivariate and propensity score matching software with auto-
mated balance optimization: the matching package for R. R version 2.10.0.
Shreve, E., Downs, A., 2005. Quality-assurance plan for the analysis of fluvial
sediment by the U.S. Geological Survey Kentucky water science center sediment
laboratory: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, 28 p.
Please cite this article in press as: Beck, D.A., et al., Amending greenroof soil with biochar to affect runoff water quantity and quality, Envi-
ronmental Pollution (2011), doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.022
Sohi, S., Loez-Capel, E., Krull, E., Bol, R., 2009. Biochar’s roles in soil and climate
change: a review of research needs. CSIRO Land and Water Science Report, 64 p.
Spolek, G., 2008. Performance monitoring of three ecoroofs in Portland, Oregon.
Urban Ecosystems 11, 349e359.
Spolek, G., Sailor, D., Ervin, D., 2008. Optimization of green roof design e prelimi-
nary results. In: Proceedings of the Greening Rooftops for Sustainable
Communities, Baltimore, MD 2008.
Steiner, C., Teixeira, W., Lehmann, J., Nehls, T., Macedo, J., Blum, W., Zech, W., 2007.
Long term effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop
production and fertility on a highly weathered Central Amazonian upland soil.
Plant and Soil 291, 275e290.
Teemusk, A., Mander, U., 2007. Rainwater runoff quantity and quality performance
from a greenroof: the effects of short-term events. Ecological Engineering 30,
271e277.
Thomas, P., Greene, G., 1993. Rainwater quality from different roof catchments.
Water Science Technology 28 (305), 291e297.
Van Metre, P., Mahler, B., 2003. The contribution of particles washed from rooftops
to contaminant loading to urban streams. Chemosphere 52 (10), 1727e1741.
Van Seters, T., Rocha, L., MacMillan, G., 2007. Evaluation of the runoff quantity and
quality performance of an extensive green roof in Toronto, Ontario. In:
Proceedings of the Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, Minneap-
olis, MN 2007.
VanWoert, N.D., Rowe, D., Andresen, J., Rugh, C., Fernandez, R., Xiao, L., 2005. Green
roof stormwater retention: effects of roof surface, slope, and media depth.
Journal of Environmental Quality 34, 1036e1044.