Skip to main content

The synergistic effect of biochar and poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline)/poly(2-hydroxyethylmethacarylate)/chitosan) hydrogels on saline soil properties and carrot productivity



Soil salinity is one of the most important factors limiting crop production. Furthermore, with the increasing population and saline soil worldwide there is no choice but to utilize saline soil to increase the agricultural regions. Therefore, to improve carrot productivity under saline conditions, it is necessary to provide good management such as applying hydrogels and biochar for improving soil properties.


Hydrogels (PEtOx-HEMA-CS) were synthesized from poly (2-ethyl-2-oxazoline), 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA as crosslinker) and chitosan (CS) via exposure those to gamma irradiation dose; 30 kGy of dose rate 0.9 kGy/h and obtained three types of hydrogels according to concentration of chitosan used. The PEtOx-HEMA-CS hydrogels were enhanced water holding capacity for agriculture purposes. The chemical structures of obtained hydrogels were characterized by FTIR, XRD and SEM. The swelling (%) and gelation (%) were determined. Biochar (BC) as an active substance was physically mixed with those hydrogels at various ratios (0/100, 0.5/99.5, 1/99 and 100/0 (g/g) biochar/hydrogels). BC, PEtOx-HEMA-CS and the mixture of PEtOx-HEMA-CS-BC were mixed with saline soil at ratio 0.05% and 0.1% w/w of obtained materials/soil. A pot experiment was conducted to mitigate the salinity hazards on carrot productivity using biochar with and without hydrogels. Mean maximum temperature, minimum temperature, precipitation, relative humidity and wind speed from September to December in the studied region are 28.66 ℃, 15.76 ℃, 0.01 mm, 58.81%, 5.94 km/h, respectively.


The obtained data referred that there is a significant decrease in soil salinity and exchangeable sodium percentage and increase in organic matter, cation exchange capacity, field capacity, permanent wilting point and available water especially at (PEtOx-HEMA-CS5)0.1-BC1. The highest increment percentage of nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium were 36.36%, 70% and 72%, respectively. In addition, the relative increase of carrot productivity was 49.63% at the highest rates of biochar and hydrogels. However, the highest value of water use efficiency was observed at the mixture of biochar and hydrogels at (PEtOx-HEMA-CS5)0.1-BC1.


Finally, applying biochar combined with (PEtOx-HEMA-CS5) could be recommended as a good approach to improve carrot productivity and water use efficiency under saline soil conditions.

Graphical Abstract


Hydrogels play a vital role in the agricultural sector and are used as structural materials to create a climate conducive to plant growth and to raise irrigation water efficiency [1, 2]. Hydrogel has been utilized as a water-retaining material, enhance water penetration rate, improve the field capacity and increase the amount of water available to plants as well as the length of time it was available [3]. Hydrogels have an incredible ability to absorb and hold extremely large amounts of water. When it comes into touch with water, it swells and turns into gel materials [4]. The application of hydrogels to the soil aided in the retention of more moisture in the soil content, improved water holding capacity, decreased soil infiltration rate and form protective coating in plants under abiotic stress conditions [5, 6]. Polyacrylamide hydrogel is a macromolecular cross-linked and environmentally responsive hydrogel with high water absorption which is useful to plant growth. It could have deteriorated as a result of physical or chemical changes [7]. Hydrogels and biochar are considered soil conditioners and yield enhancers, which can retain both water and nutrients, and then release them over an extended period. Although most superabsorbent are comprised of synthetic polymers because of their excellent price/performance ratio, the idea of partially or completely replacing such synthetic materials with “greener” alternatives must be considered for environmental reasons. Biopolymers, such as polysaccharides, are an environmentally friendly alternative to synthetic polymers, because they are cheap, readily available, and renewable organic materials [8]. In addition, their natural origin makes them inherently biocompatible, biodegradable, and non-toxic, so they are often used in the synthesis of hydrogel materials with potential applications in agriculture field [9]. In addition, chitosan a highly deacetylated derivative of chitin, one of the most abundant natural and biodegradable polymers widely used in agriculture [10], a one-of-a-kind natural basic polysaccharide, excellent biocompatibility, multifunctional reactivities, polycationic characteristics, and antibacterial capabilities [11].

Biochar, a porous solid carbonaceous material created under a wide scale of temperature ranged from 300 to 1000 ℃ in an oxygen-deficient environment. In addition to the primary component of carbon, biochar also contains the macronutrients nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium, which can increase the crop yield [12]. Physical adsorption and ionic exchange are the most reported methods for biochar amending saline soil. This is due to biochar’s unique properties, which include high porosity, surface area, functional groups, and carbon content [13]. Omondi et al. [14] concluded that biochar addition decreased soil bulk density between 3% and 31% in 19 out of 22 soils. Likewise, the addition of 30000 kg ha−1 of biochar decreased soil bulk density up to 75% compared with the no biochar addition [15]. Under saline conditions, applying biochar resulted in an increase in total yield of tomato from 14.0% to 43.3%. The positive impacts of biochar on crop productivity have been linked to both direct and indirect effects, including higher water and nutrient retention, as well as better soil physical qualities, such as infiltration rate in sandy soils. The biochar increased the maximum moisture content by 22–25% [16]. Biochar also prevents sodium uptake by plants by releasing nutrients into the soil solution and transient Na+ binding due to its high adsorption capability [17]. The application of biochar can decrease the detrimental impacts that salt-affected soils have on plant growth and yield as well as on elements of soil quality containing soil aggregation and stability Furthermore, most of advantages of applying biochar have been noticed when it is combined with other organic and inorganic fertilizers and amendments [18].

Soil management affects soil quality and plays a significant part in agriculture sustainability. The utilization of soil amendments is an essential strategy to enhance the use of scarce water supplies for agricultural production and preserve optimal soil qualities [19]. Soil salinization is a major phenomenon of soil deterioration that has a significant effect on crop productivity, threatens food security and sustainability [20]. Due to geographical sites, limited water for irrigation, low rainfall rates, and high temperatures in some areas, agriculture in arid and semi-arid regions has various challenges [21]. Low precipitation, native rock weathering, saline water irrigation, limited rainfall, high surface evaporation, and poor cultural practices have all led to expansion of saline soil, which causes a negative impact on osmotic stress, nutritional shortage, and oxidative stress [22]. For saline soil restoration, a diversity of organic and inorganic amendments is utilized. Some natural soil amendments, such as biochar, can boost macro aggregation, organic carbon, and macronutrients while also sustaining microbial activity, improving soil characteristics and plant nutrient uptake [23]. As salt-affected areas occupy nearly 1 billion hectares worldwide, it is predicted that this area will grow due to climate change and inadequate management of land and water resources [22]. Therefore, the addition of amendment in salt-affected soils has gained clear attention for the scientists of agriculture [25].

The combined application of biochar with manure, compost, or other organic materials can enhance nitrogen use efficiency as a result of slower leaching rates in saline soils [26]. Application of biochar and synthetic polymer improved the hydro-physical features of sandy soil in arid environments [27]. Biochar, combined with a superabsorbent polymeric hydrogel could be a novel technique for enhancing soil properties and increasing crop growth and yield [28].

Carrot root rot is highly impacted by growth media and other parameters that contribute to plant stress [29]. There is limited quantitative data on improving carrot yield responses to abiotic stress [30]. The modified biochar could be more appropriate for poor-nutrient soils and has a high absorption capacity and potential for water absorption [31]. Making a cost-effective composite material by mixing the biochar with polymers leads to better performance for increasing water absorption capacity. There is an increasing need for a potential technique to apply cost-effectively promising approaches globally to mitigate salinity hazards in agriculture, especially for environmentally acceptable technologies. Therefore, more efficient soil environmentally conditioners with better ability to grow crops in saline soils, which can occur in huge regions, are still needed. This study hypothesis that, both biochar and hydrogels have advantages of their own that can be obtained by combining the two to improve carrot productivity under saline soil conditions. Therefore, the aim of the current study is to prepare hydrogels from poly (2-ethyl-2-oxazoline), different concentrations of chitosan, and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate as crosslinker via gamma irradiation (green initiator for crosslinking process) to form (PEtOx-HEMA-CS1, PEtOx-HEMA-CS5, and PEtOx-HEMA-CS10) hydrogels. The outcome hydrogels and biochar will be used to enhance carrot productivity and their related parameters such as water use efficiency under saline soil conditions.

Materials and methods


Poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) with average Mw ~ 50,000, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (purity ≥ 99%,) were supplied from Sigma-Aldrich (Germany). Chitosan flakes with average Mw ~ 110 kDa and degree of deacetylation is > 85% was prepared elsewhere [32]. All chemicals were used without further purification.

Hydrogel preparation

60 g of poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) is dissolved in 300 ml of distilled water using magnetic stirrer (150 rpm) at 45 ℃ for 24 h. 1, 5 and 10 g of chitosan were dissolved separately in 100 ml of 1%, 5%, and 10% (v/v) aqueous solutions of glacial acetic acid in glass conical flask, then magnetically stirred at 150 rpm for 24 h at 65 ℃. Then, chitosan solutions (named CS1, CS5, and CS10) were filtered through polyester cloth to remove the remaining residues of insoluble impurities. 100 ml of poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) solution is added to each chitosan solutions (CS1, CS5, and CS10) separately in three conical flasks and stirred magnetically at150 rpm at room temperature for 24 h till homogenized solutions. The homogenized mixtures of poly (2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) and chitosan are poured into glass tubes, then sealed tightly and exposure to gamma irradiation (gamma rays as green initiator for crosslinking process using Indian cell with irradiation dose rate 0.9 kGy/h from 60Co as the main source). The fixed dose used is 30 kGy along the recent work. This value was chosen to avoid the CS degradation and guarantee the hydrogel formation [33].

It was noted from emerged out that glass tubes after exposure to gamma irradiation, all the mixtures are still liquid and do not form hydrogel. Therefore, 5 ml of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate is added to three mixtures as crosslinker between poly (2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) and chitosan, then again exposure to gamma irradiation of 30 kGy (gamma rays as green initiator for crosslinking process). It is noteworthy to mention that 1 to 4 ml of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate was not enough to make convenient gelation, while 5 ml of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate is helpful to make a good hydrogel.

The obtained hydrogels (PEtOx-HEMA-CS1, PEtOx-HEMA-CS5, and PEtOx-HEMA-CS10) are left for several days (4 days) to full drying at 50 °C followed g by grinding to obtain powder. The obtained hydrogels and their coded abbreviation suggested are listed in Table 3. Furthermore, a proposed reaction mechanism among poly (2-ethyl-2-oxazoline), 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate and chitosan reactants are described in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Proposed reaction mechanism of poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline), chitosan and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate to form hydrogel

Determination of swelling and gelation percentage

The swelling (%) of hydrogel was evaluated by dipping the dried hydrogel in distilled water for a certain time at room temperature, and then weighed. The swelling (%) was determined according to the following formula:

$$Swelling \left( \% \right)\, = \,\frac{{W_{t} - W_{0 } }}{{W_{0} }} \times 100$$

where Wt is the weight swollen hydrogel (g) and Wo is the weight of dry hydrogel (g).

Extraction of the sol fraction was carried out by Soxhlet apparatus for 3 h using distilled water as solvent. Then, hydrogel was dried at 50 °C to a constant weight in oven. The gelation (%) was determined gravimetrically using the following formula:

$$Gelation \left( \% \right) = \frac{{W_{d} }}{{W_{0} }} \times 100$$

where Wd is the weight of dry hydrogel after extraction process (g) and Wo is the weight of dry hydrogel before extraction process (g).

Preparation of biochar

Fresh wood of mango trees was collected and pyrolyzed at temperature range (400–600 ℃) for prepared biochar. Fresh wood of mango trees was spread out and air-dried, bagged and sealed for future use. The experimental device included a pyrolysis furnace, a thermostat, high purity N2, and high purity CO2. Then, taking an appropriate amount of fresh wood of mango trees was weighed then samples were pyrolyzed at 500 ℃ under the pyrolysis atmosphere of N2 gas with flow rate 100 cm3/min. The biochar material was manufactured at a heating rate of 20 °C/min. The furnace was evacuated for a sufficient time in advance to evacuate the air in the furnace, and the temperature was raised to the target temperature at a certain temperature increase rate and the inlet flow rate and maintained for 120 min. Then, the prepared biochar was cooled to room temperature in a dry dish and kept sealed. Furthermore, the setup diagram of biochar formation is depicted in Additional file 1: Fig. S1. The mixing between prepared hydrogels and biochar are conducted mechanically with deferent ratios as investigated in Table 1.

Table 1 Treatments of the current experiment

Experimental design

A pot experiment was conducted in a completely randomized design with three replicates at the Faculty of Agriculture, Al-Azhar University, Nasr city, Cairo, Egypt, in the second week of September 2021 to investigate the effect of biochar and hydrogel polymers on saline soil properties, water use efficiency and carrot productivity. Mean maximum temperature, minimum temperature, precipitation, relative humidity and wind speed from September to December are 28.66 ℃, 15.76 ℃, 0.01 mm, 58.81%, 5.94 km/h, respectively. The investigated soil was treated by biochar, PEtOx-HEMA-CS1, PEtOx-HEMA-CS5, and PEtOx-HEMA-CS10 at two ratios (0.05% and 0.1% (w/w) of hydrogel or biochar/soil) as alone or mixed with each other, as described in Table 1. The pots (30 cm diameter) were filled with 7 kg loamy sand soil and mixed by different rates of the studied materials.

The studied materials were added during the soil preparation with phosphate fertilization. Six seeds of carrot (Daucus carota L.) were sown per pot then thinned to three plants after germination and irrigated at field capacity during the experimental period. Carrot fertilized as follows: 200 kg.fed−1 Super phosphate (15% P2O5), 200 kg. fed−1 of Ammonium sulphate (21% N), and 100 kg.fed−1 Potassium sulfate (48% K2O) were added in to three doses after 20 days of germination. At harvest (100 days after planting), plant heights (shoot and root) were measured by a measuring scale, weight of shoot and root (g/plant) were recorded, and root diameter of carrot plants was measured at the middle portion by vernier calipers. Furthermore, root yield of each pot was cleaned, recorded and converted to the fed−1.

Soil and plant analysis

Surface samples of the studied soil were collected from El-Khatatba, Cairo-Alexandria, desert road, Menoufiya Governorate. Particle size distribution was determined with hydrometer method [34]. The Bulk density of soil was determined according to Blake and Hertage [35]. Field capacity and permanent wilting point were determined elsewhere according to Arnold and Page [36]. Soil reaction (pH) and electrical conductivity (EC) were measured soil extract as published in [37]. Organic carbon (OC) was estimated by wet oxidation with chromic acid and titrated with ferrous ammonium sulfate as has been reported in [38]. Cation exchange capacity (CEC) was determined as method reported in [39]. The exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) of the studied soil was calculated using the following formula [40].

$$ESP = \frac{Exchangeable\,sodium }{{CEC}} \times 100$$

Available nitrogen was extracted by potassium chloride solution and estimated according to Dhank and Johnson [41]. Available potassium and phosphorous were measured according to the method as reported by Solyanpour [42]. Water holding capacity is determined by the following formula:

$$\left( {WHC \% } \right)\, = \,\frac{{M_{w} - M_{d} }}{{M_{d} }} \times 100$$

where Mw is mass of wet soil at saturated and Md is mass of oven-dried soil at 105 °C. The amount of irrigation water was calculated using gravimetric methods based on the weight of sowed pots on field capacity and then reweighed at regular intervals [43]. Water use efficiency (WUE) in kg m−3 was calculated from the relation between yield and water consumptive use (WCU) according to the following formula [44].

$${\text{WUE }}({\text{kg m}}^{ - 3} ){ } = \frac{{{\text{Yield }}({\text{kgfed}}^{ - 1} )}}{{{\text{WCU }}({\text{m}}^{3} {\text{ fed}}^{ - 1} )}}$$

Some physical and chemical properties of the investigation soil are listed in Table 2. Carrot samples were washed carefully by tap water then distilled water and oven dried at 75 °C for 48 h. Dried material was wet digested using concentrate of H2SO4 and H2O2 [45]. NPK content in root (%) was estimated by the Kjeldahl procedure, colorimeter method using a spectrophotometer, and photometrically utilizing a Flame Photometer, respectively, as described elsewhere [46].

Table 2 Physical and chemical properties of the soil


The infrared spectra were studied by Fourier transform infra-red (FTIR) spectrophotometer, Perkin Elmer, USA, with range of 4000–400 cm−1. Surface morphologies of samples were carried out by scanning electron microscope (SEM), Model ZEISS-EVO15-UK. X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) patterns of samples were investigated by X-ray diffractometer (a Shimadzu XRD 600). XRD patterns were obtained at a scan rate of 5° min−1 on the diffractometer with CuKα radiation source, a generator voltage of 40 kV, a generator current of 40 mA and a wavelength of 0.1546 nm at room temperature. All the diffraction patterns were measured at room temperature and under fixed operation conditions.

Statistical analysis

The experimental data were analyzed by between treatments using SPSS package version 20 by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and least significant difference (LSD) Statistical significance was considered when P ≤ 0.05. Results are expressed as mean ± standard deviations.

Results and discussion

FTIR analysis

Figure 2 shows the FTIR spectra of (a) chitosan, (b) PEtOx, (c) PEtOx-HEMA-CS1, (d) PEtOx-HEMA-CS5 and (e) PEtOx-HEMA-CS10 hydrogels. The FTIR spectral details of pure CS exposed that the overlapping broad band at 3464 cm−1 could be assigned to hydroxyl (OH) and amino (NH2) groups, and alkyl C–H stretching vibration was identified as doublets at 2928 and 2874 cm−1, respectively [47]. Strong peaks observed at 1640 cm−1, 1587 cm−1 and 1427 cm−1 declaring the presence of C=O stretching (amide-I band), N–H bending and C–H deformation, respectively [48]. The bands at 997 cm−1 and 872 cm−1 may have come from the amino group of chitosan [49]. The presence of residual N-acetyl groups was confirmed by the bands at around 1640 cm−1 (C=O stretching of amide I) and 1312 cm−1 (C–N stretching of amide III), respectively. The band at 1152 cm−1 can be attributed to asymmetric stretching of the C–O–C bridge. The bands at 1084 and 1027 cm−1 correspond to C3–OH and C6–OH stretching, respectively. The peak of CH3 appears at 1381 cm −1 [50]. The full spectrum of PEtOx exposes the appearance of an overlapping peak at 1640 cm−1 due to the presence of amide carbonyl bonds. The respective strong double peaks at 2874, 2933 and 2974 are assignable to alkane -CH2- stretching and bending groups [51]. The OH bonding at 3484 cm−1 on the PEtOx hydrogel was attributed to the hydroxyl terminated feature of the hydrogel [52]. The band at 1428 cm−1 was attributed to CH3 bending groups [53]. The bands at 1061, 1191, and 1236 cm−1 indicated the presence of C–C stretching groups, while the bands at 1320 cm−1, 1373 cm−1, and 1473 cm−1 referred to the presence of C–H bending groups.

Fig. 2
figure 2

FTIR spectra of (a) chitosan, (b) PEtOx, (c) PEtOx-HEMA-CS1, (d) PEtOx-HEMA-CS5 and (e) PEtOx-HEMA-CS10 hydrogels

The FTIR spectra of PEtOx-HEMA-CS, PEtOx-HEMA-CS5 and PEtOx-HEMA-CS10 hydrogels expose all the characteristic peaks of crosslinked hydrogels of chitosan and PEtOx by HEMA crosslinker. As can be seen from Fig. 2a–d, the decreasing peak intensity at 3464 cm−1 for OH and N–H of CS, further the disappearing peaks at 1587 cm−1 and 1027 cm−1 for NH2 and C6-OH of CS, as well as, the decreasing peak intensity for CH2 of PEtOx at 2974 cm−1, referring to the crosslinking process by HEMA may be occurred on OH and N–H on backbone of chitosan and on CH2 on backbone of PEtOx. Furthermore, the ester and OH groups of HEMA appeared in 1724 and 1061 cm−1, respectively, as well as the peak intensities of carbonyl groups of HEMA and CS at 1640 cm−1 increased due to crosslinking process.

Effect of CS concentration on swelling and gelation

Figure 3a, b illustrates the influence of CS concentration (%) on swelling (%) and gelation (%), respectively. It is seen from Fig. 3a that the swelling (%) decreases by augmenting CS concentration (%). This is assignable to increasing the hydrophobic feature of CS [2]. However, CS has abundant water-loving groups, it was reported that CS is hydrophilic in nature [54, 55]. The swelling (%) decreases is due to the additional physical cross-linking occurring by the formation of hydrogen bonds with chitosan OH and NH2 groups [56]. Furthermore, by increasing the CS concentration increased the density of crosslinking of hydrogels and resulted in reducing the water diffusions in hydrogel matrix. This may be assigned to the increase of CS concentration; the swelling (%) of hydrogels decreased [57]. Moreover, it is seen from Table 3 that the relationship between swelling and CS concentration (%) is strong according to R2 = 0.99. Figure 3b shows the relationship between the gelation (%) versus CS concentration (%). It can be noticed that the gelation (%) decreases by increasing CS concentration. This is attributed to augmenting the crosslinking density that increases the content of gelation (%). Furthermore, the results refer to that the relationship between the gelation (%) and CS (%) is strong according R2 = 0.99 and the formula parameters are listed in Table 3

Fig. 3
figure 3

Effect of CS concentration (%) on (a) swelling (%) and (b) gelation (%) at 30 kGy of dose rate 0.9 kGy/h

Table 3 Relationship between swelling and CS concentration and their parameters

XRD analysis

XRD diffractogram of PEtOx-HEMA-CS1, PEtOx-HEMA-CS5 and PEtOx-HEMA-CS10 hydrogels are shown in Fig. 4. From diffractogram of chitosan into PEtOx-HEMA-CS1, PEtOx-HEMA-CS5 and PEtOx-HEMA-CS10 hydrogels shows the presence of peaks, at around 2θ = 9.5°, 14.5, 20.0° and 28.4°, showed that CS displayed a high degree of crystallinity phase [50, 58]. Furthermore, the intensity of these peaks increases by increasing the amount of CS into hydrogels that the wide X-ray peak is at 2θ = 41°. It is obvious in the previous studies that the wide peaks within the XRD patterns of pure CS polymers are generated because of the inter-chain segment scattering found in the amorphous state [60]. The broad peak at around 20.0° refers to the presence of both; PEtOx and HEMA as reported in literature [61, 62].

Fig. 4
figure 4

XRD patterns of PEtOx-HEMA-CS1, PEtOx-HEMA-CS5 and PEtOx-HEMA-CS10 at 30 kGy of dose rate 0.9 kGy/h

Morphology analysis

Figure 5a–d shows the SEM photomicrographs of (a) PEtOx-HEMA-CS1, (b) PEtOx-HEMA-CS5, (c) PEtOx-HEMA-CS10 and (d) biochar. It is noticed that the pore size of PEtOx-HEMA-CS1 hydrogel is smaller than PEtOx-HEMA-CS5 and PEtOx-HEMA-CS10 hydrogels. Overall, through the observations into the SEM photomicrographs approximately, it could be seen that the pore size number of PEtOx-HEMA-CS5 is similar morphology. However, the number in case of PEtOx-HEMA-CS10 is higher than in case of PEtOx-HEMA-CS5. Consequently, it can be deduced that the augmentation of CS concentration into the in-situ reaction media has a significant impact on the morphology of hydrogels produced. Otherwise, these may be attributed to reducing the degree of crosslinking density by HEMA by augmenting CS percentage

Fig. 5
figure 5

SEM photomicrographs of (a) PEtOx-HEMA-CS1, (b) PEtOx-HEMA-CS5, (c) PEtOx-HEMA-CS10 at 30 kGy of dose rate 0.9 kGy/h and (d) Biochar

Effect of biochar and hydrogels on soil chemical properties after carrot harvest

The characterization of obtained biochar has pH 8.11, EC 2.11 dSm−1, N 1.47, P 0.40%, K, 1.75%, CEC 35.5 cmolc kg−1, total organic carbon 49.50%, total porosity 45% and ash content 11.20%. Soil chemical properties (pH, EC, OM and CEC) were affected by addition of biochar, PEtOx-HEMA-CS1, PEtOx-HEMA-CS5 and PEtOx-HEMA-CS10 under saline soil conditions (Table 4). The variations in soil pH level across all treatments were not significant. Lin et al. [63] reported that pH value did not differ significantly between control and biochar-treated saline soil. Abrisham et al. [64] also reported that there is no noticeable influence on soil pH as application of polymers. A significant decrease in EC of soil treated with biochar and polymers was found. These are in trend with those obtained elsewhere [65]. The EC values of the investigated soil fluctuated between 4.0 and 5.43 dSm−1 at (PEtOx-HEMA-CS5)0.1-BC1 and control, respectively. The EC reduction is attributed to the adsorption or retention of Na on the surfaces of biochar, or the physical entrapment of salts in its fine pores, and the biochar-induced reduction in upwards movement of saline water, resulting in less salt on the soil surface [66]. In addition, hydrophilic materials can mitigate salinity and drought stresses, due to held water, retained Cl and Na+ in soil solution, enhance K+/Na+ ratio, and resist interactive effects of salinity and drought stresses [1]. Overall, pH and EC values decreased due to super-absorbent polymers [67]. The different changes in soil pH and EC with the application of different types of polymers depending upon type, the synthetic materials, the chemical structure and soil physical and chemical characteristics [68]. Organic matter (OM) and cation exchange capacity (CEC) in saline soil were increased as increasing of the application rates of biochar and polymers. Soil cation exchange capacity increased significantly with increasing hydrogel content [64, 69]. The highest values of OM and CEC were 0.57% and 4.90−1, respectively, at (PEtOx-HEMA-CS10) 0.1-BC1 as compared control. Chitosan can be used to improve soil organic matter and soil nutrients [70]. The exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) in relation to cation exchange capacity (CEC) is used to determine the relative amount of Na+ present on the soil surface (Table 4). The combination of biochar and polymers are useful in reducing the ESP in saline soil. The mechanisms are determined by the qualities of the soil, plants, and biochar. Chaganti et al. [71] biochar could lower ESP by replacing Na+ in saline soil with Ca++ ions. Soil amendment by biochar may increase soil structure and porosity, facilitating Na+ leaching and lowering the ESP or SAR of saline soils [72]. Biochar reduces soil EC, SAR and ESP by Na adsorption, and shows a positive effect on the physicochemical properties of saline soils [1].

Table 4 Effect of biochar and hydrogels on soil chemical properties after carrot harvest

Effect of biochar and hydrogels on soil physical properties after carrot harvest

The values of field capacity (FC), permanent wilting point (PWP) available water (AW) are listed in Table 4. FC, PWP and AW were increased by increasing the application rates of biochar, PEtOx-HEMA-CS1, PEtOx-HEMA-CS5, and PEtOx-HEMA-CS10 under saline soil conditions especially at mixture of biochar and with PEtOx-HEMA-CS5. The application of biochar improved soil physical characteristics [1]. The highest value of AW (9.40%) was obtained at (PEtOx-HEMA-CS5)0.1-BC1. Soil moisture contents and available water in the soil treated with polymer were greater than in control soil [73]. Hydrogels can promote water saving in soil and gradually release it when the soil moisture content decreases [69, 70]. The maximum values of FC and PWP were 13.60% and 4.2%, respectively, at (PEtOx-HEMA-CS5)0.1-BC1, followed by (PEtOx-HEMA-CS10)0.1-BC0.5 treatment. Application of polymer improved water retention, leading to a larger amount of water in the plant rooting environment and decreased soil infiltration rate [74]. While soil bulk density decreased by increasing the investigated materials alone or combination with each other. Abrisham et al. [64] observed that soil bulk density decreased from 1.56 to 1.45 Mg m−3 as a result application of hydrogel polymer. The lowest value (1.50 Mg m−3) was observed at PEtOx-HEMA-CS5)0.1-BC1. Water-retaining polymers can cause stable aggregates, improve soil porosity, and decrease soil bulk density [75].

Effect of biochar and hydrogels on growth parameters of carrot

The growth parameters of carrot (shoot weight, root weight, shoot length, root length and root diameter) were increased significantly by increasing the application rates of biochar, PEtOx-HEMA-CS1, PEtOx-HEMA-CS5, and PEtOx-HEMA-CS10 under saline soil conditions (see Table 5). This is attributed to considerable absorption of nutrient solution by polymers and slow release of absorbed solution to plant roots [76]. It was observed that the highest values of shoot weight and shoot length were 15.32 g/plant and 34.52 cm, respectively, at (PEtOx-HEMA-CS5)0.1-BC1. The interaction between polymers and biochar comprises organic elements that may promote soil porosity, reducing soil bulk density and providing favorable circumstances for crop growth. In addition, polymers increase plant growth through enhancing soil water retention [77]. While the highest values of roots weight, root length and root diameter were 45.65 g/plant, 13.47 cm and 23.65 mm, respectively, at (PEtOx-HEMA-CS10)0.1-BC1.

Table 5 Effect of biochar and hydrogels on growth parameters of carrot

It could be seen that the increase of chitosan percent increased root attributes. Chitosan enhances the root system development, hence enhancing water absorption capacity. Furthermore, it was reported from literature that optimal moisture availability led to higher production of carrot roots, which ultimately resulted in the formation of thicker carrot roots [78]. This increment is related to the increasing of water availability due to the polymers can promote plant growth by improving soil water retention and extending the time it takes for plants to wilt, hence enhancing plant survivability under abiotic stress [78, 79].

Macronutrients content

There is a clear variation of macronutrients contents in carrot root due to the application rates of biochar, PEtOx-HEMA-CS1, PEtOx-HEMA-CS5, and PEtOx-HEMA-CS10 under saline soil conditions (Table 6). This is due to the increment of water accessibility which enhances the nutrients availability in the root zone [78]. The data revealed that N P and K values were increased significantly by increasing biochar rates as alone or combination with polymers.

Table 6 Effect of biochar and hydrogels on macronutrients content in carrot roots

This trend agrees with those obtained by Başak [76] who reported that macronutrients content (N P K) of tomato plant were greatly significantly by polymer application. The highest values of NP and K were 1.50%, 0.51% and 0.86% as increased by 36.36%, 70% and 72%, respectively, at (PEtOx-HEMA-CS10)0.1-BC1. This is assignable to the application of biochar mixed by polymers improving root development and plant growth, decreases nutrient losses by leaching out, and enhances soil penetration. It also decreases the negative effects of abiotic stress in soil [73]. Hence, it is possible that the improving moisture retention increased the nutritious supply. Chitosan can provide a carbon source for soil bacteria, speeding the transition of organic matter, where it has a symbiotic relationship with growth-promoting rhizobacteria, triggering germination and supporting plant nutrient uptake [80, 81]. In addition, Sharif et al. [82] observed that chitosan has been used in soil as a plant nutrient and has confirmed tremendous efficacy in combination with other industrial fertilizers without hurting the soil's beneficial bacteria.

Carrot root productivity as affected by biochar and tested hydrogels

Data of carrot yield as affected by the application rates of biochar, PEtOx-HEMA-CS1, PEtOx-HEMA-CS5, and PEtOx-HEMA-CS10 hydrogels under saline soil are listed in Table 7. Carrot productivity increased noticeably by increasing the application rates of biochar and the investigated hydrogels, especially at the highest rates. Biswas et al. [83] reported that carrot productivity increased significantly by application of biochar and vermicompost. Therefore, hydrogels have the good potential to enhance conserving water of carrot production. Therefore, the hydrogels can be employed as a water conserver in plant production [84]. The highest values of carrot yield were 20.22 t ha−1 at (PEtOx-HEMA-CS10)0.1-BC1. This is due to the hydrogels having a good ability to boost water retention, water uptake, and water use efficiency, which alleviate abiotic stress in plants and improve plant performance, resulting in increased growth and productivity [21]. Moreover, the relative increase of carrot productivity was improved with increasing of the examined materials. The highest relative increase was 49.63% for the sample of (PEtOx-HEMA-CS10)0.1-BC1. Figure 6a, b exposes the demonstration photos of impact of (PEtOx-HEMA-CS10)0.1-BC1 on carrot productivity. It can be seen from photos that the growth of carrots in presence of (PEtOx-HEMA-CS10)0.1-BC1 is more productive than absence of (PEtOx-HEMA-CS10)0.1-BC1 during agriculture process.

Table 7 Carrot yield as affected by biochar and tested hydrogels
Fig. 6
figure 6

Demonstration photos (a) control before treatment and (b) after treatment with (PEtOx-HEMA-CS10)0.1-BC1 sample

Water use efficiency

Carrot productivity per unit of conducted water under different levels of moisture content is listed in Table 7. Water use efficiency (WUE) is a term used to describe the ratio of productivity to water consumptive utilization, and it is affected by crop type, cultivation practices, and soil conditions [85]. The data revealed that the amount of applied water decreased with increasing of biochar and polymers rates especially at (PEtOx-HEMA-CS5)0.1-BC1. Polymers enhance water use efficiency, abiotic stress, soil physical properties, and crop yield, as well as to obtain higher soil moisture and seed germination rates, enhance maize dry matter accumulation, and water use efficiency [67].

The positive effects of biochar on crop productivity have been linked to both direct and indirect impacts, including higher water and nutrient retention, as well as better soil physical properties such as infiltration rate in sandy soils [14]. The highest values of WCU were seen at the mixture of biochar and polymers at (PEtOx-HEMA-CS5)0.1-BC1 as shown in Additional file 1: Fig. S2. These data are confirmed elsewhere [86], who found that polymers and biochar enhanced water retention capacity. The little maize plants consumed less water during this early growth period, and the BC treatments allowed the soil to retain more soil. Therefore, polymers have the potential to improve water use efficiency and conserve water of carrot production saline soil [84].


The hydrogels were prepared by gamma rays as initiator for from 60Co as the main sources of gamma irradiation. The combined addition of biochar and hydrogels of poly (2-ethyl-2-oxazoline)/poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate)/chitosan have a good significant to improve soil physical and chemical properties. Under saline soil conditions field capacity, wilting point, available water, bulk density, soil pH, soil electrical conductivity, exchangeable sodium percentage, organic matter and cation exchange capacity were improved significantly. In addition, carrot growth and productivity, water use efficiency and macro nutrients content were significantly increased. The application of 1% of biochar combined with 0.1% poly (2-ethyl-2-oxazoline)-2 hydroxyethyl methacrylate-5% chitosan reduced the harmful effect of salinity and provided favorable circumstances for carrot productivity.

Availability of data and materials

Research data and materials are not shared.


  1. Dehkordi DK. Effect of superabsorbent polymer on salt and drought resistance of eucalyptus globulus. Appl Ecol Environ Res. 2017;15:1791–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jothimani B, Sureshkumar S, Venkatachalapathy B. Hydrophobic structural modification of chitosan and its impact on nanoparticle synthesis a physicochemical study. Carbohyd Polym. 2017;173:714–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Montesano FF, Parente A, Santamaria P, Sannino A, Serio F. Biodegradable superabsorbent hydrogel increaseswater retention properties of growing media and plant growth. Agric Sci Procedia. 2015;4:451–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Vijayalakshmi K, Devi BM, Sudha PN, Venkatesan J, Anil S. Synthesis, characterization and applications of nano chitosan/sodium alginate/microcrystalline cellulose film. J Nanomed Nanotechnol. 2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ahmed S, Fahmy A. Applications of natural polysaccharide polymers to overcome water scarcity on the yield and quality of tomato fruits. J Soil Sci Agric Eng. 2019;10:199–208.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ma G, Yang Q, Ran F, Dong Z, Lei Z. High performance and low-cost composite superabsorbent based on polyaspartic acid and palygorskite clay. Appl Clay Sci. 2015;118:21–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kim H-S, Kim K-R, Yang JE, Ok YS, Owens G, Nehls T, Wessolek G, Kim K-H. Effect of biochar on reclaimed tidal land soil properties and maize (zea mays l.) response. Chemosphere. 2016;142:153–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tomadon B, Casalongue C, Alvarez VA. Biopolymer-based hydrogels for agriculture applications: swelling behavior and slow release for agrochemicals. In: Gutiérrez TJ, editor. Polymers for agri-food applications. Berlin: Springer; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Campos EVR, de Oliveira JL, Fraceto LF, Singh B. Polysaccharides as safer release systems for agrochemicals. Agron Sustain Dev. 2014;35:47–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wu L, Liu M, Liang R. Preparation and properties of a double-coated slow-release npk compound fertilizer with superabsorbent and water-retention. Biores Technol. 2008;99:547–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sahariah P, Mar M. Antimicrobial chitosan and chitosan derivatives: a review of the structure-activity relationship. Biomacromol. 2017;18:3846–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Diatta AA, Fike JH, Battaglia ML, Galbraith J, Baig MB. Effects of biochar on soil fertility and crop productivity in arid regions: a review. Arab J Geosci. 2020;13:595.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dai Z, Zhang X, Tang C, Muhammad N, Wu J, Brookes PC, Xu J. Potential role of biochars in decreasing soil acidification-a critical review. Sci Total Environ. 2017;581:601–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Omondi MO, Xia X, Nahayo A, Liu X, Korai PK, Pan G. Quantification of biochar effects on soil hydrological properties using meta-analysis of literature data. Geoderma. 2016;274:28–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Adekiya AO, Agbede TM, Olayanju A, Ejue WS, Adekanye TA, Adenusi TT, Ayeni JF. Effect of biochar on soil properties, soil loss, and cocoyam yield on a tropical sandy loam alfisol. Sci World J. 2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Usman ARA, Al-Wabel MI, Abdulaziz A-H, Mahmoud W-A, El-Naggar AH, Ahmad M, Abdulelah A-F, Abdulrasoul A-O. Conocarpus biochar induces changes in soil nutrient availability and tomato growth under saline irrigation. Pedosphere. 2016;26:27–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Feng JIN, Cheng RAN, Qul AA, Yan QG, Li YG, Jian BL, Dong H, Xian QZ, Xu L, Xi WS. Effects of biochar on sodium ion accumulation, yield and quality of rice in saline-sodic soil of the west of songnen plain, northeast china. Plant Soil Environ. 2018;64:612–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Alkharabsheh HM, Seleiman MF, Battaglia ML, Shami A, Jalal RS, Alhammad BA, Almutairi KF, Al-Saif AM. Biochar and its broad impacts in soil quality and fertility, nutrient leaching and crop productivity: a review. Agronomy. 2021;11:993.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bartkowski B, Bartke S, Helming K, Paul C, Techen A-K, Hansjurgens B. Potential of the economic valuation of soil-based ecosystem services to inform sustainable soil management and policy. PeerJ. 2020;8:e8749.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Tan H, Onga PY, Klemešb JJ, Bonga CPC, Lic C, Gaoc Y, Leea CT. Mitigation of soil salinity using biochar derived from lignocellulosic biomass. Chem ICAL Eng. 2021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Alkhasha A, Al-Omran A, Louki I. Impact of deficit irrigation and addition of biochar and polymer on soil salinity and tomato productivity. Can J Soil Sci. 2019;99:380–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Shrivastava P, Kumar R. Soil salinity: a serious environmental issue and plant growth promoting bacteria as one of the tools for its alleviation. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2015;22:123–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Obia A, Mulder J, Martinsen V, Cornelissen G, Børresen T. In situ effects of biochar on aggregation, water retention and porosity in light-textured tropical soils. Soil Tillage Res. 2016;155:35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hossain MS. Present scenario of global salt affected soils, its management and importance of salinity research. Int Res J Biol Sci. 2019;1(1):1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ding Z, Kheir AS, Ali OA, Hafez E, Elshamey EA, Zhou Z, Wang B, Lin X, Ge Y, Fahmy AF, Seleiman MF. Vermicompost and deep tillage system to improve saline-sodic soil quality and wheat productivity. J Environ Manag. 2020;277:111388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Joseph S, Kammann CI, Shepherd JG, Conte P, Schmidt HP, Hagemann N, Rich AM, Marjo CE, Allen J, Munroe P. Microstructural and associated chemical changes during the composting of a high temperature biochar: mechanisms for nitrate, phosphate and other nutrient retention and release. Sci Total Environ. 2018;618:1210–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Alkhasha A, Al-Omran A, Aly A. Effects of biochar and synthetic polymer on the hydro-physical properties of sandy soils. Sustainability. 2018;10(12):4642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Youssef S, Riad G, Abu El-Azm NAI, Ahmed E. Amending sandy soil with biochar or/and superabsorbent polymer mitigates the adverse effects of drought stress on green pea. Egypt J Hortic. 2018;45(1):169–83.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Villeneuve F, Leteinturier J. The carrot. Paris: Centre Technique Interprofessionnel des Fruits et Légumes; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Reid JB, Gillespie RN. Yield and quality responses of carrots (daucus carota l) to water deficits. New Zealand J Crop Hortic Sci. 2017;45:299–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ghassemi-Golezani K, Rahimzadeh S. Biochar modification and application to improve soil fertility and crop productivity. Agriculture. 2022;68(2):45–61.

    Google Scholar 

  32. El-Dib FI, Eshaq G, ElMetwally AE, Hefni HHH. Enhancing the porous structure of swellable poly (acrylic acid-co-acrylamide) crosslinked by n-maleyl chitosan via introducing foaming agents and non-ionic surfactant. Adv Ind Eng Polymer Research. 2021;4:9–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Jaroslaw W, Fumio Y, Naotsugu N, Radoslaw W, Hiroshi M. Degradation of chitosan and sodium alginate by gamma radiation, sonochemical and ultraviolet methods. Radiat Phys Chem. 2005;73:287–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gee GW, Or D. Particle-size analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am Book Ser. 2002;5:255–93.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Blake GR, Hartge KH. Methods of soil analysis. In: Klute A, editor. Part 1 physical and mineralogical methods. 2nd ed. Madison: SSSA; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Arnold K, Page AL. Methods of soil analysis. Pt. 1. Physical and mineralogical methods. Agronomy (USA) no 9 1986.

  37. Rhoades JD. Salinity: electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids. In: Sparks DL, Page AL, Helmke PA, Loeppert RH, Soltanpour PN, Tabatabai MA, Johnston CT, Sumner ME, editors. Methods of soil analysis: part 3 chemical methods. Madison: Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Nelson DW, Sommers LE. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In: Sparks DL, Page AL, Helmke PA, Loeppert RH, Soltanpour PN, Tabatabai MA, Johnston CT, Sumner ME, editors. Methods of soil analysis: part 3 chemical methods. Madison: Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sumner ME, Miller WP. Cation exchange capacity and exchange coefficients. In: Sparks DL, Page AL, Helmke PA, Loeppert RH, Soltanpour PN, Tabatabai MA, Johnston CT, Sumner ME, editors. Methods of soil analysis: part 3 chemical methods. Madison: Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Seilsepour M, Rashidi M, Khabbaz BG. Prediction of soil exchangeable sodium percentage based on soil sodium adsorption ratio. Am Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci. 2009;5:1–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Dhank WC, Johnson GV. Testing soils for available nitrogen. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 1990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Soltanpour PN. Use of ammonium bicarbonate dtpa soil test to evaluate elemental availability and toxicity. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 1985;16:323–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Dumroese RK, Pinto JR, Montville ME. Using container weights to determine irrigation needs: a simple method. Native Plants J. 2015;16:67–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ghane E, Feizi M, Mostafazadeh-Fard B, Landi E. Water productivity of winter wheat in different irrigation/planting methods using saline irrigation water. Int J Agric Biol. 2009;11:131–7.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Lowther JR. Use of a single sulphuric acid-hydrogen peroxide digest for the analysis of pinus radiata needles. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 1980;11:175–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. FAO. A guide to laboratory establishment for plant nutrient analysis FAO fertilizer and plant nutrition bulletin no 19. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Wanule D, Balkhande JV, Ratnakar PU, Kulkarni AN, Bhowate CS. Extraction and ftir analysis of chitosan from american cockroach, periplaneta americana. Extraction. 2014;3:299–304.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ibezim E, Andrade C, Marcia C, Barretto B, Odimegwu D, De Lima F. Ionically cross-linked chitosan/tripolyphosphate microparticles for the controlled delivery of pyrimethamine. Ibnosina J Med Biomed Sci. 2011;3:77–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Jamnongkan T, Kaewpirom S. Potassium release kinetics and water retention of controlled-release fertilizers based on chitosan hydrogels. J Polym Environ. 2010;18:413–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Queiroz MF, Teodosio Melo KR, Sabry DA, Sassaki GL, Rocha HAO. Does the use of chitosan contribute to oxalate kidney stone formation? Mar Drugs. 2014;13:141–58.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Salmanpour M, Tamaddon A, Yousefi G, Mohammadi-Samani S. “ Grafting-from” synthesis and characterization of poly (2-ethyl-2-oxazoline)-b-poly (benzyl l-glutamate) micellar nanoparticles for potential biomedical applications. BioImpacts. 2017;7:155.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Putra NE, Tigrine A, Aksakal S, de la Rosa VR, Taheri P, Fratila-Apachitei LE, Mol JMC, Zhou J, Zadpoor AA. Poly (2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) coating of additively manufactured biodegradable porous iron. Biomater Adv. 2022;133:112617.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Mansfield EDH, Sillence K, Hole P, Williams AC, Khutoryanskiy VV. Pozylation: a new approach to enhance nanoparticle diffusion through mucosal barriers. Nanoscale. 2015;7:13671–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Lavlinskaya MS, Sorokin AV. Synthesis methods of superabsorbent polymers and factors affecting their preparation. In: Arpit S, Jaya T, editors. Properties and applications of superabsorbent polymers. Singapore: Springer; 2023.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sorokin A, Sukhanov P, Popov V, Kannykin S, Lavlinskaya M. A new approach to increasing the equilibrium swelling ratio of the composite superabsorbent based on carboxymethyl cellulose sodium salt. Cellulose. 2022;29:159–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Sorokin A, Lavlinskaya M. Synthesis of the superabsobents enriched in chitosan derivatives with excellent water absorption properties. Polym Bull. 2022;79:407–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Konzen EaR, Navroski MC, Friederichs G, Ferrari LSH, Pereira MDO, Felippe Di. The use of hydrogel combined with appropriate substrate and fertilizer improve quality and growth performance of mimosa scabrella benth seedlings. Cerne. 2017;23:473–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Ma G, Yang D, Zhou Y, Xiao M, Kennedy JF, Nie J. Preparation and characterization of water-soluble n-alkylated chitosan. Carbohyd Polym. 2008;74:121–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Mobarak NN, Ahmad A, Abdullah MP, Ramli N, Rahman MYA. Conductivity enhancement via chemical modification of chitosan based green polymer electrolyte. Electrochim Acta. 2013;92:161–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Aziz SB, Karim WO, Brza MA, Abdulwahid RT, Saeed SR, Al-Zangana S, Kadir MFZ. Ion transport study in cs: Poz based polymer membrane electrolytes using trukhan model. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20:5265.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Al-Odayni A-BM, Aouak T, Alghamdi AA, Saeed WS, Ouladsmane M, Karama U, Alothman ZA. Ibuprofen grafted on poly (2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate): synthesis, mass transfer, and in vitro drug release investigations. Int J Polym Mater Polym Biomater. 2018;67:36–49.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Jerca VV, Lava K, Verbraeken B, Hoogenboom R. Poly (2-cycloalkyl-2-oxazoline) s: high melting temperature polymers solely based on debye and keesom van der waals interactions. Polym Chem. 2016;7:1309–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Lin XW, Xie ZB, Zheng JY, Liu Q, Bei QC, Zhu JG. Effects of biochar application on greenhouse gas emissions, carbon sequestration and crop growth in coastal saline soil. Eur J Soil Sci. 2015;66:329–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Abrisham ES, Jafari M, Tavili A, Rabii A, Zare Chahoki MA, Zare S, Egan T, Yazdanshenas H, Ghasemian D, Tahmoures M. Effects of a super absorbent polymer on soil properties and plant growth for use in land reclamation. Arid Land Res Manag. 2018;32:407–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Huang M, Zhang Z, Zhu C, Zhai Y, Lu P. Effect of biochar on sweet corn and soil salinity under conjunctive irrigation with brackish water in coastal saline soil. Sci Hortic. 2019;250:405–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Dahlawi S, Naeem A, Rengel Z, Naidu R. Biochar application for the remediation of salt-affected soils: challenges and opportunities. Sci Total Environ. 2018;625:320–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Bai W, Zhang H, Liu B, Wu Y, Song J. Effects of super-absorbent polymers on the physical and chemical properties of soil following different wetting and drying cycles. Soil Use Manag. 2010;26:253–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Liu RF, Zhang JP, Zhen X, Wang AQ. Effects of water-preserving composite of polyacylamide/attapulgite on soil physical properties. Soils. 2006;38:86–91.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Chen P, Zhang WA, Luo W, Ye F. Synthesis of superabsorbent polymers by irradiation and their applications in agriculture. J Appl Polym Sci. 2004;93:1748–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Faqir Y, Ma J, Chai Y. Chitosan in modern agriculture production. Plant Soil Environ. 2021;67:679–99.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Chaganti VN, Crohn DM, Šimůnek J. Leaching and reclamation of a biochar and compost amended saline-sodic soil with moderate sar reclaimed water. Agric Water Manag. 2015;158:255–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Yue Y, Guo WN, Lin QM, Li GT, Zhao XR. Improving salt leaching in a simulated saline soil column by three biochars derived from rice straw (oryza sativa l.), sunflower straw (helianthus annuus), and cow manure. J Soil Water Conserv. 2016;71:467–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. El-Asmar J, Jaafar H, Bashour I, Farran MT, Saoud IP. Hydrogel banding improves plant growth, survival, and water use efficiency in two calcareous soils. Clean-Soil Air Water. 2017;45:1700251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Li X, He J-Z, Hughes JM, Liu Y-R, Zheng Y-M. Effects of super-absorbent polymers on a soil-wheat (triticum aestivum l.) system in the field. Appl Soil Ecol. 2014;73:58–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Abrol V, Shainberg I, Lado M, BenHur M. Efficacy of dry granular anionic polyacrylamide (pam) on infiltration, runoff and erosion. Eur J Soil Sci. 2013;64:699–705.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Basak H. The effects of super absorbent polymer application on the physiological and biochemical properties of tomato (solanum lycopersicum l.) plants grown by soilless agriculture technique. Appl Ecol Environ Res. 2020;18:5907–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Xu ZS, Yang Q-Q, Feng K, Yu X, Xiong A-S. Dcmyb113, a root-specific r2r-myb, conditions anthocyanin biosynthesis and modification in carrot. Plant Biotechnol J. 2020;18:1585–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Ni B, Liu M. Lü S: Multifunctional slow-release urea fertilizer from ethylcellulose and superabsorbent coated formulations. Chem Eng J. 2009;155:892–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Orikiriza LJB, Agaba H, Tweheyo M, Eilu G, Kabasa JD, Huettermann A. Amending soils with hydrogels increases the biomass of nine tree species under non-water stress conditions. Clean-Soil Air Water. 2009;37:615–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Bolto B, Dixon D, Eldridge R. Ion exchange for the removal of natural organic matter. React Funct Polym. 2004;60:171–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Agbodjato NA, Noumavo PA, Adjanohoun A, Agbessi L, Baba-Moussa L. Synergistic effects of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and chitosan on in vitro seeds germination, greenhouse growth, and nutrient uptake of maize (zea maysl.). Biotechnol Res Int. 2016.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Sharif R, Mujtaba M, Ur Rahman M, Shalmani A, Ahmad H, Anwar T, Tianchan D, Wang X. The multifunctional role of chitosan in horticultural crops; a review. Molecules. 2018;23:872.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Biswas P, Mahato B, Mahato DC, Rahman FH, Ghosh C. Effect of vermicompost and biochar on growth and yield of carrot in red lateritic soils of purulia district of West Bengal. Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2020;13:15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Dabhi R, Bhatt N, Pandit B. Superabsorbent polymers an innovative water saving technique for optimizing crop yield. Int J Innov Res Sci Eng Technol. 2013;2:5333–40.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Liu WZ, Hunsaker DJ, Li YS, Xie XQ, Wall GW. Interrelations of yield, evapotranspiration, and water use efficiency from marginal analysis of water production functions. Agric Water Manag. 2002;56:143–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Paradelo R, Basanta R, Barral MT. Water-holding capacity and plant growth in compost-based substrates modified with polyacrylamide, guar gum or bentonite. Sci Hortic. 2019;243:344–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


Authors would like to thank and appreciate Soils and Water Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Al-Azhar University; Polymer Chemistry Department, Central Laboratory Unit, National Centre for Radiation Research and Technology at Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority; and Polymer Laboratory, Petrochemical Department, Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute, for support this work.


Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB). There is no funder for this work, just support from our affiliations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



SAA designed and implemented the study, performed data analysis, wrote the first draft of the manuscript. HHHH and AA-F prepared the studied materials, contributed to the design of study, wrote and reviewed the final manuscript. NRAE-R has identified the chemical reaction of hydrogel by different analyses. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hassan H. H. Hefni.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All authors listed have read the complete manuscript and have approved submission.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1

: Fig S1. Setup diagram for the preparation of biochar from fresh wood of mango trees. Fig S2. Water use efficiency (WUE) and relative increase of carrot yield as affected by the highest rate of the studied materials.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdeen, S.A., Hefni, H.H.H., Awadallah-F, A. et al. The synergistic effect of biochar and poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline)/poly(2-hydroxyethylmethacarylate)/chitosan) hydrogels on saline soil properties and carrot productivity. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 10, 68 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: