Reading stories about the growth of the biocharBiochar is a carbon-rich material created from biomass decomposition in low-oxygen conditions. It has important applications in environmental remediation, soil improvement, agriculture, carbon sequestration, energy storage, and sustainable materials, promoting efficiency and reducing waste in various contexts while addressing climate change challenges. More industry everyday is exciting, but the absence of standardized testing in the biochar industry has been a persistent source of frustration. It has made it incredibly difficult for producers to market their products credibly and for end-users to confidently buy materials with predictable characteristics. But now, the American National Standard for Biochar (ANS) could serve as the first step towards a more reassured, consistent industry. The standard was released for public comment on August 8, 2025, with a comment period closing on September 22, 2025. This initiative was developed by the US Biochar Initiative (USBI) through the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) and represents a crucial step toward creating a uniform language for a diverse and vital industry.

I recently had the opportunity to speak with Chris Wiberg, a fuels analysis and bioenergy expert who was a driving force behind the new North American standard. He offered me some invaluable insights and background information on its creation, assessing what has been done and what could be coming next.

A Standard Born of Urgency and Experience

Chris sees a clear historical parallel between the biochar industry’s current state and that of the solid biofuels sector back in 2005. Having been instrumental in developing standards for wood pellets and solid biofuels since then, he knows firsthand how urgently we need a cohesive suite of standards. He told me the ANS would have been beneficial “about five years ago,” but with the current surge in business opportunities, it has become an absolute necessity. This standard isn’t a mere convenience; it’s a vital tool to ensure the industry’s rapid growth is built on a foundation of scientific rigor and consistency.

Chris also told me that the ANS is designed to be a cohesive, North American version of a biochar standard that can eventually be integrated into the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for broader global adoption, or the two can learn from one another. This pre-publication strategy isn’t isolationism; it’s a way to accelerate a process that would take years in the ISO world. As the chair of the US Technical Advisory Group to ISO/TC 238, Chris has ensured that the American standard already aligns with future international initiatives, positioning North America as a leader in this critical field. The goal, he explained to me, isn’t just a North American standard, but “global standardization.”

Clarifying Methodologies: Laboratory vs. Production Line

One of the key elements of the ANS is that it is defined as a laboratory standard. This means the standard focuses on how a sample should be tested upon its arrival at a lab – say, to determine total moisture content – rather than on replacing real-time, in-line production measurements. The chosen method, a standard oven technique at 105°C, provides a consistent and repeatable analysis for laboratories. This distinction is vital, as it ensures that producers aren’t overwhelmed by prescriptive, on-site testing requirements while still providing a reliable, shared metric for laboratory analysis. Chris made it clear that the formal creation of a standard for laboratory testing shouldn’t be perceived as a dismissal of on-site testing, which for some applications can be more suitable. It should be seen as complimentary for producers that may not have robust testing mechanisms, or who desire to have an external testing body.

Addressing the Wildcards: The Challenges of Complex Parameters

The development process wasn’t without its philosophical battles. According to Chris, the most debated parameter was specific surface area, particularly the nitrogen BET test. The test, while common, yielded inconsistent results across different labs due to variations in test conditions and analyst interpretation. The standard addresses this by referencing the ISO 9277 method but includes crucial caveats, informing users that the resulting number is merely a “snapshot” of a specific range of pore sizes, not a comprehensive assessment of the product’s true surface area. The standard’s inclusion of this test is not a mandate but a form of guidance, acknowledging that while the industry is interested in this data, the methodology and interpretation are complex and require careful consideration.

A similar challenge arose with high-ash materials. The traditional methods for calculating fixed carbon and oxygen content by difference can yield negative numbers so alternate equations had to be developed.  As it turns out, Thermal Gravimetric Analysis (TGA) actually accounts for the fixed carbon calculation issue by conducting the volatile matterVolatile matter refers to the organic compounds that are released as gases during the pyrolysis process. These compounds can include methane, hydrogen, and carbon monoxide, which can be captured and used as fuel or further processed into other valuable products.   More test and ashAsh is the non-combustible inorganic residue that remains after organic matter, like wood or biomass, is completely burned. It consists mainly of minerals and is different from biochar, which is produced through incomplete combustion.   Ash Ash is the residue that remains after the complete More test in series but potentially under reports the true ash content. The ANS provides guidance on when to use these new methods of calculation. The standard does not mandate or prohibit the use of the new methods or TGA but advises producers to “understand their material” and to select an appropriate testing approach accordingly. This places a crucial element of judgment in the hands of the producer, encouraging a deeper understanding of their product.

Exclusions, Environmental Regulations, and Future Debates

The first version of the standard intentionally excluded certain parameters that are more subjective, such as cation exchange capacity (e.g. how well is it understood how a laboratory test relates to conditions in a particular soil type). Cation exchange, in particular, is more of a relational metric, as opposed to something like moisture content which is more objective. The project focused on “essential and defensible parameters” like moisture and carbon content, with the full expectation that future iterations of the document will incorporate additional parameters as the industry gains understanding.

Another key challenge was the incorporation of environmental testing. While some European standards reference US EPA methods but mandate specific solvents for PAH and PCB extractions, US environmental laboratories adhere to the EPA methodologies as written. Attempting to change these established procedures would make it nearly impossible for producers to find labs willing to perform the tests. As a result, the standard defers to the environmental regulations of each respective country, recognizing that a one-size-fits-all approach is not practical for global standards when it comes to environmental compliance.

Key Characteristics of the New Standard’s Creation

Here’s what I took away from my conversation with Chris:

• A Proactive Approach is Paramount: The ANS shows the value of a proactive, regional initiative to accelerate global standardization. By pre-publishing a North American version, the industry is not waiting for a long, drawn-out international process but is instead taking the lead. Biochar will not and cannot wait around for things to catch up, with big growth projections for the next 5 years. 
• Clarity over Prescription: The distinction between laboratory and production-line standards is a powerful example of providing clarity without being overly prescriptive. The standard guides how a product should be analyzed while allowing producers the freedom to choose their own real-time monitoring technologies.
• Acknowledge Uncertainty: The transparent handling of complex parameters like specific surface area and identifying alternate methods of calculation, due to not all materials behaving the same, is a testament to the standard’s integrity. Instead of providing a misleadingly simple answer, it offers guidance and disclaimers, encouraging producers and end-users to understand the limitations of certain tests.
• Collaboration is Key: The successful, one-year development of the standard, involving a dedicated group of 20 to 40 experts, underscores the power of a collaborative effort. Chris called this initiative a “gift to the industry” from the US Biochar Initiative (USBI), and it shows that a community-driven approach can overcome the bureaucratic hurdles often associated with standards development.

This is version one, and there is no doubt that future iterations will be needed as the industry matures and new knowledge emerges. It could be the case that we start to see use-case-specific standards that clarify testing for soil enhancement capacity, carbon sequestration potential, or water filtration. However, this foundational document is, nonetheless, a significant first step, providing the consistency and rigor the biochar industry needs to move confidently into the future.