Next Article in Journal
Crop Production and Phosphorus Legacy with Long-Term Phosphorus- and Nitrogen-Based Swine Manure Applications under Corn-Soybean Rotation
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Fencing on Vegetation and Soil Nutrients of the Temperate Steppe Grasslands in Inner Mongolia
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Application of Zeolites in Agriculture and Other Potential Uses: A Review

1
Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry (DAGRI), University of Florence, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Italy
2
CNR, IRET, Via Moruzzi, 1, 56124 Pisa, Italy
3
DN360 Piazza d’Ancona, 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 21 June 2021 / Revised: 24 July 2021 / Accepted: 28 July 2021 / Published: 31 July 2021

Abstract

:
Excessive use of nitrogen fertilizer and inappropriate fertilization designs have negative results in agricultural ecosystems, such as considerable nitrogen losses through nitrogen dioxide (NO2) soil leaching and ammonia NH3 volatilization. In addition, climate change, with rising summer temperatures and reduced precipitation, leads to production declines and water shortages in the soil. This review aims to highlight the characteristics of natural zeolite and focus on their multiple uses in agriculture. These minerals are tectosilicates showing an open three-dimensional structure involving the cations required to balance the framework electrostatic charge of aluminum and silicon tetrahedral units. Different research groups reported more than fifty natural zeolites; chabazite, clinoptilolite, phillipsite, erionite, stilbite, heulandite, and mordenite are the most well-known. Zeolites are great tools to help the farmer and agronomist cope with several issues, such as soil or water pollution, contamination by heavy metals, loss of nutrients, and loss of water-use efficiency (WUE) of drylands. These natural crystalline aluminosilicates are considered soil conditioners to improve soil chemical and physical properties, such as saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks), infiltration rate, cation exchange capacity (CEC), and water-holding capacity (WHC). Owing to their properties, these materials are able to reduce nitrate leaching and ammonia volatilization. Zeolites are also known for their carrying capacity of slow-release macronutrients, micronutrients, and fertilizers. However, the potential of these materials in agricultural areas is apparent, and zeolites show the promise of contributing directly to improve agricultural ecosystems as a sustainable product.

1. Introduction

The widespread use of synthetic fertilizers in current agricultural practices has disrupted the planet’s chemistry by doubling the flow of nitrogen and phosphorus into ecosystems to levels of around 121 million tons of nitrogen (N) and 9 million tons of phosphorus (P) per year [1,2]. In addition, ammonia (NH3) volatilization is the leading cause of nitrogen loss in agricultural systems worldwide [3], and, consequently, it is conducive to low fertilizer nitrogen use efficiency with health and environmental damages and leads to indirect nitrous oxide (N2O) emission [4]. The growing intake of synthetic fertilizers, associated with the use of brackish irrigation water, especially in coastal areas, represents a serious threat to the environment, as it alters the humic-mineral and microbiological context of the soil with consequent progressive loss of fertility until sterility is reached, i.e., desertification (degradation of land resources) [5,6].
On the other hand, the fertilizer industry is considered a source of heavy metals and natural radionuclides [7]. Synthetic fertilizers contain a large majority of the heavy metals, notably mercury (Hg), cadmium (Cd), arsenic (As), lead (Pb), copper (Cu), and nickel (Ni), and natural radionuclides, such as uranium (U-238), thorium (Th-232), and polonium (Po-210) [8,9,10]. Hence, fertilization may affect the accumulation of several heavy metals in plant systems and soil [11,12]. As a result, most agricultural soils are intrinsically low in fertility or made less fertile due to inadequate or incorrect replenishment due to low efficiency of input use (fertilizers and water) owing to nutrient losses through various loss mechanisms: non-absorption, runoff, volatilization, water deficit, etc. [13].
In addition to the scenario of soil resources’ depletion, the situation regarding climate change is added and has caused diverse ecological responses in crops [14,15]. Global warming increases the frequency of exposure to extreme temperatures in crops, increasing the risk of a water deficit, and therefore, can cause damage to production and quality [16,17]; higher temperatures also affect plants’ ability to obtain and use moisture (increased evapotranspiration) [18].
It is in this context that the zeolites’ use in agriculture/water stress/heavy metals/soil-fertility management assumes greater significance [19]. The present paper reviews the critical properties of natural zeolites and their important uses in agriculture and other sectors. This work also calls for greater involvement of scientists in biochemical investigations essential for the future development of zeolite and its applications.

2. History and Origin of Zeolites

The discovery of natural zeolites has opened an important chapter in the mineralogy sector owing to their exciting surface and structural properties that have been exploited in many areas: agriculture, industrial technology, animal husbandry, cosmetics and biotechnology industry.
Firstly, natural zeolites were found in vugs in basalt rocks and in cavities. Afterwards, they were also discovered in sedimentary rocks (19th century). In 1756, Alex Fredrik Crönstedt, a Swedish mineralist, first identified natural zeolite as a mineral after he sampled crystals from a copper mine in Sweden. The mineralist discovered that the new mineral, when heated quickly after absorbing water, produced large amounts of water vapor [20]. Based on this phenomenon (ability to froth when heated to about 200 °C), he called the material zeolite, “boiling stones”, from the Greek words ζέω, “boil” and λίθος, “stone” [21]. For many years, the discovery remained unapplied, but fortunately in the 1950s, they were rediscovered and detected on many continents. After several geological explorations, geologists included the following genetic types in zeolite formation:
-
Crystals found from hot-spring or hydrothermal activity (reaction with basaltic lava flows);
-
Sediments originating from volcanic deposits in saline and alkaline lake systems;
-
Deposits originating in alkaline soil from volcanic sediments;
-
Deposits formed from marine sediments’ low-temperature or hydrothermal alteration;
-
Formations resulting from low-grade burial metamorphism [22].
The golden age period for the zeolites’ development was from 1954 to 1980. Their commercial production and their use began in the 1960s, in most countries, while in Turkey they were first discovered in 1971 [23,24]. To date, more than 50 types of natural zeolites have been reported by several research groups: clinoptilolite, chabazite, erionite, phillipsite, mordenite, analcite, etc. [25]. Rarely are natural zeolites present in nature in sediments pure; in fact, they are often contaminated with other minerals, quartz, metals, etc. [26]. In the 1960s, most research on the use of zeolites in agriculture began in Japan. Japanese farmers, over the years, used zeolites to control soil moisture and to increase the pH of acidic volcanic soils [27,28]. Even though there are no affordable data on the total amount of these minerals in the world, some countries, for instance Japan, South Africa, Cuba, USA, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Germany, and Russia, have important reserves and production potentials [29]; nonetheless more than 300,000 tons of zeolite-rich tuff is mined each year in these countries [27]. Besides, over the years, more than one hundred and fifty zeolites have been synthesized. Synthetic zeolites are useful because of their controlled and known chemical-physic properties [30]. By the 1980s, over 100 zeolites had been synthesized. While synthetic zeolites have been used extensively in commercial application, demand for natural zeolite has been limited. Their primary use is in areas where the use of synthetic zeolites would be uneconomical [31]. Annual data of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) released zeolite production estimates as 4 million tons per year; US consumption is around 0.5 million tons, while China uses around 2.5 million tons per year, firstly as an additive to pozzolan cement [32].

3. Classification and Structure of Zeolites

Zeolites are a large family of minerals and are among the most important in microporosis materials. The word “zeolite” indicates a silica polymorph or crystalline aluminosilicate based on several corner-sharing TO4 tetrahedrals (T = usually silicon and aluminum) forming a three-dimensional four-connected framework with regularly sized pores of molecular dimension [33].
Nowadays, the “zeolite framework” term, in general, indicates a corner-sharing network of tetrahedrally organized atoms [34]. Zeolites are tectosilicates, hydrated crystalline aluminosilicates of alkaline and alkali earth element (cations) [35]. In nature, when volcanic ash interacts with the high-pH water and high-salt content, zeolites are normally formed, causing a rapid crystal formation [36]. These volcanogenic sedimentary mineral, found in volcanic rocks for a period of 250 years, are joined into three dimensional frameworks and composed by pores and corner-sharing tetrahedrons of alumina (AlO4) and silica (SiO4) [37]. The “roca magica” has an infinite, open, three-dimensional structure [38]. Briefly, they are solids with an open, three-dimensional crystal structure composed of several elements, such as silicon (Si), aluminum (Al), and oxygen (O), with alkaline or alkali metals (for example magnesium (Mg), sodium (Na), and potassium (K)) and trapped water molecules in the pores between them [39]. The pores’ diameters are around 12 ångström (Å); the pores are interlinked with channels about 8 Å in diameter; rings of approximately 12 linked tetrahedrons compose these cages [40,41].
The ratio of Si/Al is a zeolites’ important characteristic; in fact, it determines the ion exchange characteristics of the mineral. Until 1977, zeolite minerals were distinguished based on the Si/Al ratio, except for clinoptilolite (Si/Al ≥ 4.0) and heulandite (Si/Al < 4.0). Zeolite minerals are classified on the basis of silica/alumina ratio in the following way [42]:
(a)
Zeolites erionite and mordenite—high Si/Al ratio (from 10 to several thousands);
(b)
Zeolites Y—intermediate Si/Al ratio (2 to 5);
(c)
Zeolites A—low Si/Al ratio (between 1.0 and 1.5).
The siliceous zeolites are organophilic non-polar sorbents, while the aluminous ones are strong desiccants [43].
After the report of the International Mineralogical Association Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names there was a suggested nomenclature for zeolite species. Partial hydration, dehydration, and over-hydration were not sufficient points for the recognition of several zeolites [44]. In 2001, Jacobs et al. [45] introduced a new classification of zeolites based on the size of their pores (pore diameter):
(1)
14 member rings; extra-large-pore zeolites with free pore diameter of 0.8–1.0 nm;
(2)
12 member rings; large-pore zeolites with free pore diameter of 0.6–0.8 nm;
(3)
10 member rings; medium-pore zeolites with free pore diameter of 0.45–0.6 nm;
(4)
8 member rings; small-pore zeolites with free pore diameter of 0.3–0.45 nm [46].

4. Properties of Zeolites

The empirical formula of a zeolite is of the type: M2/nO Al2O3 xSiO2 ● yH2O, where n is the valence charge on that element; M is an alkali or alkaline earth element, and y is a number from 2 to 7. The empirical and unit-cell formulas of some of the most common natural zeolites are reported in Table 1. In the formula, exchangeable cations are contained in the first set of parentheses; structural cations are contained in the second set of parentheses instead (with the oxygen they make up the tetrahedral framework of the structure). Loosely bound molecular water is normally present in the structures of all-natural zeolites [27].
The chemical composition of zeolites varies widely depending on their area of origin, especially as regards the content of Na2O, K2O, CaO, SiO2, Al2O3, and Fe2O3. For example, zeolite originated from Naples: 52.15% SiO2, 2.35% CaO, 7.54% K2O, 18.56% AlO3, 3.30% Na2O, 0.20% FeO3, 0.20% MgO, 212 CEC (cation-exchange capacity (cmol (p+) kg−1)), 2.18 SiO2/Al2O3; zeolite originated from Argentina: 62.70% SiO2, 0.40% CaO, 1.20% K2O, 12.50% AlO3, 6.40% Na2O, 0.60% FeO3, 0.60% MgO, 175 CEC (cation-exchange capacity (cmol (p+) kg−1)), 5.02 SiO2/Al2O3 [19].
Chemical and physical properties of these minerals include their thermal expansion, morphology, color, density, particle size, uniformity of composition, hardness, optical properties, dielectric properties, electrical conductivity, thermochemistry, zeolitic water, pore-volume, the structure of external and internal tetrahedral linkages, and framework density [47]. Dimension, shape, high purity, and linkage of their pores and their voids are the key characteristics of zeolite properties [48,49]. Zeolites have three main properties that are of interest for agricultural purposes: high water-holding capacity in the free channels both in soil and pots, high cation-exchange capacity, and high adsorption capacity [50]. Water molecules and cations occupy interconnected voids and pores. The mineral structure is very complex, but zeolite has large-open ‘channels’ in its crystal structure, which provide void space for cation exchange and adsorption [51]. Zeolites are extremely effective ion exchangers due to the internal surface area of channels. Zeolites, without a change of their crystal structure, are able to gain and lose water reversibly and to exchange extra-framework cations. The entry channels and large structural cavities into them contain molecules of water that construct hydration spheres around exchangeable cations. With heating at 350–400 °C and water removal, small molecules (larger molecules are excluded) can pass through entry channels, the ‘‘molecular sieve’’ zeolite property [52]. Other useful properties include: cation selectivity, specifically for such cations as potassium, cesium, and ammonium; low density (2.1–2.2 g/cm3); high void volume (50%); and high cation-exchange capacity of 150–250 cmol/kg (CEC) [53,54]. Some physical properties among the most well-known zeolites are [21]:
Analcite: high heat stability, 18% porosity, 2.24–2.29 g/cm3 specific gravity, 1.85 g/cm3 bulk density, 4.54 meq/g ion exchange capacity;
Chabazite: high heat stability, 47% porosity, 2.05–2.10 g/cm3 specific gravity, 1.45 g/cm3 bulk density, 3.84 meq/g ion exchange capacity;
Clinoptilolite: high heat stability, 34% porosity, 2.15–2.25 g/cm3 specific gravity, 1.15 g/cm3 bulk density, 2.16 meq/g ion exchange capacity;
Erionite: high heat stability, 35% porosity, 2.02–2.08 g/cm3 specific gravity, 1.51 g/cm3 bulk density, 3.12 meq/g ion exchange capacity;
Heulandite: low heat stability, 39% porosity, 2.18–2.20 g/cm3 specific gravity, 1.69 g/cm3 bulk density, 2.91 meq/g ion exchange capacity;
Mordenite: high heat stability, 28% porosity, 2.12–2.15 g/cm3 specific gravity, 1.70 g/cm3 bulk density, 4.29 meq/g ion exchange capacity;
Phillipsite: moderate heat stability, 31% porosity, 2.15–2.20 g/cm3 specific gravity, 1.58 g/cm3 bulk density, 3.31 meq/g ion exchange capacity.
To summarize, zeolites’ properties that are structure-related are as follows:
  • The behavior of ‘zeolitic’ water: high potency of hydration and dehydration [55];
  • Extensive void volume and low density when dehydrated [56];
  • Molecular sieve property [57];
  • Stability of the crystal structure of many dehydrated zeolites when 50% volumes of the dehydrated crystals are void [58];
  • In the dehydrated crystals, homogenous molecular-sized channels [32];
  • Cation exchange features [59] and the removal of heavy metals [60];
  • Several physical properties, such as electrical conductivity [61];
  • Gases and vapors adsorption [62];
  • Catalytic properties [63].

5. Application of Zeolites in Agriculture

Due to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of zeolites as ‘non-toxic’ and due to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classification as “safe” for human consumption, zeolites are extensively used for agricultural uses [64]. Clinoptilolite, a member of the natural zeolite heulandite group, is the most abundant in sediments and soils and is the most common zeolite used in agricultural practices (for instance, for promoting nitrogen retention in soils and as a soil amendment) [65].

5.1. Fertilizer Efficiency

The enormous use of chemical fertilizers causes serious environmental hazards as only a fraction is really absorbed by the soil. The extra fertilizer is washed off, and this phenomenon leads to high concentrations of potassium, nitrogen, and phosphorus in surface water bodies (eutrophication) or of groundwater nitrates [66]. These problems can be resolved using slow-release fertilizers (SRFs) [67]; the elevated selectivity of clinoptilolite for cations, such as potassium and ammonium, has been taken advantage of in the preparation of chemical fertilizers [68]. Zeolites promote the nutrient-retention capacity of the soils by improving the slower release of these elements for uptake by crops [69]. By using a cationic surfactant, hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide, the zeolite-A surface was positively modified to increase its capacity to retain anion phosphate (PO43−) [70]. Barbarick et al. (1990) [71] demonstrated on Sorghum bicolor L. that zeolite with slightly soluble phosphate rock provides a sustained and slow release of P by increasing dry matter, nutrient content, and nutrient uptake of the crop. An increase in spinach yield and in spinach plants’ assimilation of nutrients, in a greenhouse test, were found after the application of zeolite with ammonium (NH4+) and potassium [72]. In croton plants (Codiaeum variegatum L.), zeolitic tuff added to peat moss and perlite retained nutrients in the root zone, leading to the more efficient use of N and K fertilizers [73]. The use of a natural clinoptilolite to enhance rice grain yield, nitrogen recovery, and nitrogen-use efficiency, was tested in a coarse-textured rice field in Iran; results indicated a significant positive effect of the mixture of zeolite and fertilizer [74]. In addition, nutrient concentrations determined in maize (Zea mays L.) tissues were clearly affected by the addition of zeolite; the use of inorganic fertilizers mixed with zeolites remarkably increased N, P, and K uptake and their use efficiency in roots, leaves, and stem [75]. It was found that the nitrogen adsorption by radish tops increased with a zeolite treatment compared with an ammonium sulfate control. Also, they found that clinoptilolite added to soil with urea reduced the growth suppression that normally occurs when urea is added alone in soil [27].

5.2. Soil Amendment

Zeolites have several positive effects on soil properties, such as increasing soil moisture, promoting hydraulic conductivity, and increasing yields in acidified soils; they are widely used as soil conditioners to improve soil physio-chemical properties [76]. Soil-cationic exchange capacity can be increased using zeolites as soil amendment [77]. Zeolite is not acidic but is marginally alkaline, and its use with fertilizers can help buffer soil pH levels, thus reducing the need for lime application [21]. In Japan, natural zeolites were used as amendments for sandy soils and were exported to Taiwan for this purpose. Zeolitic amendment is an effective way to improve soil conditions in semi-arid and arid environments [78]. Zeolite increased the cation-exchange capacity of vineyard soils, thus affecting nutrient availability and triggering microbial metabolic activity stimulation (increase in dehydrogenase activity) and soil organic matter alteration [79]. The application of the Brazilian zeolitic sedimentary rocks as a soil conditioner significantly increases the yields of lettuce, tomato, rice, and Andropogon grass [80]. On the other hand, in Ukrainian sandy soils, clinoptilolite (15 tonnes ha−1) boosted the yields of potatoes, barley, clover [81], and sugar cane with utilization of 6 tonnes ha−1 [82]. In a study by Chander and Joergensen (2002) [83], zeolite, as a soil amendment, increased the soil microbial biomass and the incorporation of added 14C into microbial biomass.

5.3. Slow Release of Herbicides

Increasing safety for the farmer and savings in energy are some other advantages of slow-release formulation (SRF) application. SRFs have been shown to supply the active ingredient of herbicides for a longer duration of efficacy at the required rate for weed control and reduce leaching potential and environmental pollution of herbicides by decreasing the total amount of the chemical required [84]. Due to their ion-exchange capacities, many natural zeolites are effective carriers of herbicides, fungicides, and pesticides. ‘ZSM 5’ zeolite (or MFI type, a synthesized zeolite), a hydrophobic solid, was found to adsorb atrazine better when organics were present in the zeolite’ compartmentalized intra-crystalline void space [85,86]. ZSM-5 was found to accommodate paraquat herbicide in its microstructure with restricted mobility [87]; after this, Zhang et al. (2006) [88] studied the release of paraquat from zeolites by ion exchange with 1.0 M Na+, and it was estimated to be 0.75 mmol g−1 of zeolite (14% by weight). Zeolites were also found to be slow-release carriers for 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) herbicide [89,90].

5.4. Heavy Metal Traps

Soil pollution by heavy metals, such as lead, cadmium, zinc, nickel, manganese, chrome, copper, and iron, is one of the preeminent issues of modern agriculture; its increase is highly influenced by industry development and the abuse of fertilizers. The main factor determining the solubility of heavy metals in soil is low pH, which is associated with the risk of their inclusion in a trophic chain [91]. The phytoavailability of heavy metals is correlated with their concentrations in soil solution [92]. Zeolites, in general, have a high cation-exchange capacity, and they attract positive-charged ions; therefore, zeolites are widely used for cationic pollutants’ sequestration, such as heavy metals: Cd, Pb, Cr, Zn, Cu, etc. [93]. Many authors demonstrated the high affinity of natural zeolites to heavy metals [94]; for instance, 1% added zeolite could retain 3.6 mmol Pb kg−1 or 750 mg kg−1 soil [95]. Nishita and Haug (1972) [96] showed that, in contaminated soil with radioactive strontium (Sr90), the addition of clinoptilolite resulted in a significant decrease in the uptake of Sr90 by plants. In addition, clinoptilolite can remove heavy metals from sewage sludge compost with a particle size of 3.3–4.0 mm [97]. In some cultivation, the use of heavy metals is a common practice (i.e., copper in viticulture), resulting in an increase of metal pollution in the soil. Zeolites can mitigate this pollution by adsorbing Cu+ ions and storing them in its reticle.

5.5. Water Absorption

Due to the high porosity of their crystalline structure, zeolites can retain molecules of water up to 60% of their weight. Water, in their pores, could be steadily evaporated or reabsorbed without damaging the crystalline structures; moreover, adsorption on zeolites is characterized by Langmuir-type isotherms [27]. Zeolites can modify soil water content by reshaping the bulk density and aeration porosity. Bulk density is a physical property of soils that can have an effect on the total porosity and topsoil stability [19]. In sandy soils, zeolites can lead to higher water-holding capacities; the treated soil capacity with natural zeolite in holding water in drought and general conditions increased 0.4–1.8 and 5–15%, respectively, compared to non-treated soil [98,99]. Huang and Petrovic (1994) [100] showed that, at soil matric potentials from −3 kPa to −10 kPa, the water content of zeolite–sand mixtures increased with decreasing zeolite particle size, for instance >1 mm, 1 to 0.5 mm, 0.5 to 0.25 mm, 0.25 to 0.105 mm, 0.105 to 0.047 mm, and <0.047 mm. Briefly, zeolites can increase total porosity and decrease bulk density, and, consequently, increase soil water content [35]. For instance, Bigelow et al. (2001) [101] showed that the porosity, bulk density, and cation-exchange capacity (CEC) of sandy soil were 0.413, 1.66 Mg m−3, and 0.8 cmol(+) kg−1, respectively, while the same parameters for zeolite-treated soil were 0.437, 1.60 Mg m−3, and 1.6 cmol(+) kg−1, respectively.
Zeolites improve water-use efficiency (WUE) by increasing the soil water-holding capacity and its availability to crops due to their extraordinarily porous structure [98,102]. Zeolites also help rapid re-wetting and enhance the lateral flow of water toward the root zone during irrigation. This leads to the preservation of the water needed for irrigation [21].
Hydraulic conductivity is a soil physical property that shows the ease of water movements in the soil; saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) is the soil skill to conduct H2O when water fills the whole pores, and it is used for modeling water and solute movements in soil [103]. Many authors showed that zeolite applications increased hydraulic conductivity [104]; clinoptilolite Ks was 1.42 m h−1 and erionite Ks was 1.29 m h−1, which was higher than sand Ks (0.41 m h−1) [105]. Soil-hydraulic properties improvement can lead to increased water-use efficiency (WUE) and to increased crop production [106]. Under arid conditions in Karapinar Konya, Turkey, the water-use efficiency of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) was positively affected by zeolite and irrigation treatments [107]. The addition of zeolite to soils and the alternate wetting and drying irrigation (AWD) of rice crops (Oryza sativa L.) required 27.8% and 8.1% less water, 33.3% less N fertilizer, and increased yields by 10.6% and 0.6%, respectively, without measurably affecting rice grain quality [108]. In another study, as compared to conventional continuous flooding irrigation (CF), AWD with zeolite reduced water consumption by 15–30% and improved the aeration of a paddy field while meeting the physiological requirements of plant growth for water [109]. The application of zeolite on the soil of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), irrigated with diluted seawater, also enhanced the water- and salt-holding capacity of the soil [110]. Taking into account climate change, especially the reduction and concentration of precipitation, with the consequent increase in water deficit, zeolites can be of great importance in reducing water stress in agriculture.

5.6. Gas Absorption

All zeolites materials, natural and synthesized zeolites, can absorb methanol (CH3OH), formaldehyde (HCHO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), water (H2O), ammonia (NH3), molecular hydrogen (H2), argon (Ar), oxygen (O2), nitrogen (N2), xenon (Xe), helium (He), krypton (Kr), and many other gases and can thus be used to collect them or control odors. For these reasons, zeolite is being used in intensive animal husbandry livestock, to reduce undesirable odors caused by the content of H2S and NH3. Ammonium-adsorption capacities of the zeolites ranged from 8.149 mg N g−1 to 15.169 mg N g−1 [111]. The clinoptilolite ammonium-adsorption capacity increased linearly with pH and was estimated to be 9.660 mg N kg−1 at pH 4, 11.220 mg N kg−1 at pH 5, 12.720 mg N kg−1 at pH 6, and 13.830 mg N kg−1 at pH 7 [112].
In addition, zeolite, combined with other additives, can be widely used to reduce gas emissions, salinity, and nutrient loss during the composting process [113,114]. In fact, wood vinegar mixed with zeolite and biochar to compost pig manure decreased methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide emissions by 50.39–61.15%, 33.90–46.98%, and 79.51–81.10%, respectively, and reduced ammonia loss by 64.45–74.32% [115].

5.7. Antifungal Activity and Crop Protection

Ecological issues and environmental pollution make it necessary to look for alternatives to synthetic pesticides, such as controlled release or organic agrochemicals. It has been demonstrated that zeolites have the potential to reduce the environmental impacts caused by the control of plant diseases. Several authors investigated these materials for the control of harmful insects [116,117]. Their particular framework, their smaller particle sizes, carbon dioxide (CO2) sorption capacity, and heat-stress reduction skill make zeolites satisfactory as a leaf-coating product against fungal diseases and insect pests [41]. In this context, the material’s micronization degree to avoid nozzle occlusion for its distribution becomes very important; moreover, the ability of zeolite to interact with the external environment intensifies as the size dwindles when the specific contact surface increases, i.e., 0–50, 0–150, and 0–500 μm [116].
In a study carried out by Calzarano et al. (2019) [118] on Vitis Vinifera L. it was shown that natural Italian chabazite, sprayed on grapevines, provided simultaneous control of sour rot, grey mold, and L. botrana.
Due to their non-toxicity, zeolites can be applied against a large range of insect species in the stored product, such as the confused flour beetle, Tribolium confusum Jacquelin du Val (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae); the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae); the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae); the rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae L., and the lesser grain borer, Rhyzopertha dominica F. (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae) [119].

5.8. Photosynthesis Enhancement on Crops

Zeolites can absorb carbon dioxide molecules and release them gradually into the ecosystem [120].
Spraying zeolites on plant leaves may raise the amount of carbon dioxide near the stomata. This phenomenon could lead to a higher photosynthesis rate for C3 plants, such as vines, tomato plants, apple trees, and orange trees, with an increase in the efficiency of net carbon CO2 (velocity of carboxylation) uptake and a decrease in carbon dioxide loss by the photorespiratory system. This leads to higher growth, an increase in the rate of production of the leaf surface, and a decrease in transpiration rate [121].

5.9. Heat Stress and Sunburn of Zeolites on Crops

With the rising temperature, Rubisco’s affinity (the enzyme responsible for C fixation in plants) for CO2 and the solubility of CO2 relative to O2 both decrease. Hence, the carboxylation to oxygenation ratio is reduced when the temperature increases [122]. Owing to the increasing leaf reflectiveness (whiteness) of infrared radiation, the leaf temperature can be significantly diminished by coating the plant with zeolites. Several studies indicated a reduced canopy temperature and a higher leaf carbon assimilation rate in apple tree and vines [123,124]. Abou-Khaled et al. (1970) [125] showed a reduction of approximately 4 °C for leaves of rubber plants (Ficus elastica L.), dwarf orange trees (Citrus sinensis L. cv. Valencia), and kidney bean plants (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), caused by the reflecting material.

5.10. Aquaculture

In modern intensive fish farms or closed-system fish cultures with high densities, ammonia nitrogen is the major nitrogenous waste of aquatic animals; NH3 is produced by protein de-amination in aquaculture feeds and is excreted mainly through fishes’ gills [126]. The concentration of ammonia such as to achieve toxicity to fish fauna is >0.02 ppm [33]. Most of the applications of zeolitic minerals in aquaculture and water quality processes are based on their high selectivity for ammonia [127]. In shrimp-culture tanks, phillipsite from Neapolitan Yellow Tuff was used to remove ammonia from the effluent from saline water. In addiction, zeolites can play other two roles in aquaculture: to generate oxygen for aeration systems in aquaria or transport and to supplement fish rations [38].

5.11. Animal Feed Additive

Zeolites dietary supplementation is a cooperative and efficacious strategy in the prevention of several diseases and in the advancement of animal health. Many authors in several species, such as swine [128], calves [129], and lambs [130], have documented the benefits of their dietary inclusion. Briefly, below some mechanisms by which zeolite minerals may exert their performance-promoting properties in the diet of livestock husbandry [131]:
-
Aflatoxin-sequestering effect: elimination of mycotoxin growth inhibitory effects;
-
Ammonia-binding effect: elimination of ammonia toxic effects produced by intestinal microbial activity;
-
Enhanced pancreatic enzymes activity: favorable effect on feed components hydrolysis over a wider range of pH, improved energy and protein retention;
-
Fecal elimination of p-cresol: reduction of the absorption of toxic products of intestinal microbial degradation, such as p-cresol;
-
Retarding effect on digesta transit: slower passage rate of digesta through the intestines and more efficient use of nutrients.

6. Conclusions

Nowadays there is an increasing interest in zeolite utilization in agriculture. Zeolite application finds several potential uses in agriculture, particularly in soil management. For example, zeolites can be used as carriers of nutrients to promote nutrient use efficiency. On the one hand, considering climate change and rising temperatures, the application of zeolites to the soil or in greenhouses can be a valuable aid for farmers to preserve water content, reduce canopy temperature, and ensure production. On the other hand, zeolites can be an indispensable tool for reducing polluting emissions and for purifying heavy metals from plant stems, as a result of excessive anthropic pressure over the years. Nowadays, the approach to sustainable agriculture cannot be separated from the use of sustainable products, and it is precisely in this perspective that zeolites will be able to help farms achieve fertilizer savings, better management of water resources, soil decontamination, and groundwater. The goal of an agricultural ecosystem is, in fact, resilience, that is, that property present in natural ecosystems that guarantees the renewability of resources. A great leap in quality in soil management is characterized by sustainable agriculture, which represents that form of production that responds to the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to respond to theirs. These minerals are therefore a valuable aid in the search for balance in the agricultural ecosystem.

Author Contributions

E.C. wrote the original draft manuscript, which was edited and improved by G.B.M. and D.M. Investigation, L.S., F.P., M.F., G.M., C.M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sharpley, A.N.; Smith, S.J.; Naney, J.W. Environmental impact of agricultural nitrogen and phosphorus use. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1987, 35, 812–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Passaglia, E.; Prisa, D. Contributo delle Zeolititi nella Mitigazione delle Problematiche Ambientali Conseguenti alle Vigenti Pratiche Agricole. Ediazioni lulu 2018, 155. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bouwman, A.F.; Boumans, L.J.M.; Batjes, N.H. Estimation of global NH3 volatilization loss from synthetic fertilizers and animal manure applied to arable lands and grasslands. GBC 2002, 16, 8-1–8-14. [Google Scholar]
  4. Pan, B.; Lam, S.K.; Mosier, A.; Luo, Y.; Chen, D. Ammonia volatilization from synthetic fertilizers and its mitigation strategies: A global synthesis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 232, 283–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kassas, M. Desertification: A general review. J. Arid Environ. 1995, 30, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hartemink, A.E. Assessing soil fertility decline in the tropics using soil chemical data. Adv. Agron. 2006, 89, 179–225. [Google Scholar]
  7. Savci, S. An agricultural pollutant: Chemical fertilizer. IJESD 2012, 3, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Mortvedt, J.J. Heavy metal contaminants in inorganic and organic fertilizers. In Fertilizers and Environment; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherland, 1996; pp. 5–11. [Google Scholar]
  9. Modaihsh, A.S.; AI-Swailem, M.S.; Mahjoub, M.O. Heavy metals content of commercial inorganic fertilizers used in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. JAMS 2004, 9, 21–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Oyedele, D.J.; Asonugho, C.; Awotoye, O.O. Heavy metals in soil and accumulation by edible vegetables after phosphate fertilizer application. Electron. J. Environ. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 5, 1446–1453. [Google Scholar]
  11. Adhikari, T.; Gowda, R.C.; Wanjari, R.H.; Singh, M. Impact of Continuous Fertilization on Heavy Metals Content in Soil and Food Grains under 25 Years of Long-Term Fertilizer Experiment. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2020, 52, 389–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wang, B.; Chu, C.; Wei, H.; Zhang, L.; Ahmad, Z.; Wu, S.; Xie, B. Ameliorative effects of silicon fertilizer on soil bacterial community and pakchoi (Brassica chinensis L.) grown on soil contaminated with multiple heavy metals. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 267, 115411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Neely, R.K.; Baker, J.L. Nitrogen and phosphorus dynamics and the fate of agricultural runoff. In Northern Prairie Wetlands; Iowa State University Press: Iowa City, IA, USA, 1989; pp. 92–131. [Google Scholar]
  14. Salewski, V.; Hochachka, W.M.; Fiedler, W. Global warming and Bergmann’s rule: Do central European passerines adjust their body size to rising temperatures? Oecologia 2010, 162, 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Malhi, G.S.; Kaur, M.; Kaushik, P. Impact of climate change on agriculture and its mitigation strategies: A review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Porter, J.R. Rising temperatures are likely to reduce crop yields. Nature 2005, 436, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Cataldo, E.; Salvi, L.; Mattii, G.B. Effects of irrigation on ecophysiology, sugar content and thiol precursors (3-S-cysteinylhexan-1-ol and 3-S-glutathionylhexan-1-ol) on Vitis vinifera cv. Sauvignon Blanc. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2021, 164, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Cline, W.R. Global warming and agriculture. Financ. Dev. 2008, 45, 1. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ramesh, K.; Reddy, D.D. Zeolites and their potential uses in agriculture. Adv. Agron. 2011, 113, 219–241. [Google Scholar]
  20. Mahesh, M.; Thomas, J.; Kumar, K.A.; Bhople, B.S.; Saresh, N.V.; Vaid, S.K.; Sahu, S.K. Zeolite farming: A sustainable agricultural prospective. IJCMAS 2018, 7, 2912–2924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Polat, E.; Karaca, M.; Demir, H.; Onus, A.N. Use of natural zeolite (clinoptilolite) in agriculture. J. Fruit Ornam. 2004, 12, 183–189. [Google Scholar]
  22. Xu, R.; Pang, W.; Yu, J.; Huo, Q.; Chen, J. Chemistry of Zeolites and Related Porous Materials: Synthesis and Structure; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  23. Payra, P.; Dutta, P.K. Zeolites: A primer. In Handbook of Zeolite Science and Technology; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003; Volume 2, pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  24. Zimmermann, N.E.; Haranczyk, M. History and utility of zeolite framework-type discovery from a data-science perspective. Cryst. Growth Des. 2016, 16, 3043–3048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dogan, A.U. Zeolite mineralogy and Cappadocian erionite. Indoor Built Environ. 2003, 12, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Minato, H. Characteristics and uses of natural zeolites. Koatsugasu 1968, 5, 536. [Google Scholar]
  27. Mumpton, F.A. Using zeolites in agriculture. In Innovative Biological Technologies for Lesser Developed Countries-Workshop Proceedings; Office of Technology Assessment, OTA: Washington, DC, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  28. Wajima, T. Ion exchange properties of Japanese natural zeolites in seawater. Anal. Sci. 2013, 29, 139–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Sfechis, S.; Vidican, R.; Șandor, M.; Stoian, V.; Șandor, V.; Muste, B. Using assessment of zeolite amendments in agriculture. ProEnviron. Promediu 2015, 8, 85–88. [Google Scholar]
  30. Shevade, S.; Ford, R.G. Use of synthetic zeolites for arsenate removal from pollutant water. Water Res. 2004, 38, 3197–3204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Clifton, R.A. Natural and Synthetic Zeolites; US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines: Washington, DC, USA, 1987; Volume 9140. [Google Scholar]
  32. Eroglu, N.; Emekci, M.; Athanassiou, C.G. Applications of natural zeolites on agriculture and food production. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 97, 3487–3499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ghasemi, Z.; Sourinejad, I.; Kazemian, H.; Rohani, S. Application of zeolites in aquaculture industry: A review. Rev. Aquac. 2018, 10, 75–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sun, T.; Seff, K. Silver clusters and chemistry in zeolites. Chem. Rev. 1994, 94, 857–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nakhli, S.A.A.; Delkash, M.; Bakhshayesh, B.E.; Kazemian, H. Application of zeolites for sustainable agriculture: A review on water and nutrient retention. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2017, 228, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Oste, L.A.; Lexmond, T.M.; Van Riemsdijk, W.H. Metal immobilization in soils using synthetic zeolites. J. Environ. 2002, 31, 813–821. [Google Scholar]
  37. Newsam, J.M. The zeolite cage structure. Science 1986, 231, 1093–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Mumpton, F.A. La roca magica: Uses of natural zeolites in agriculture and industry. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96, 3463–3470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Ming, D.W.; Mumpton, F.A. Zeolites in soils. Miner. Soil Environ. 1989, 1, 873–911. [Google Scholar]
  40. Sangeetha, C.; Baskar, P. Zeolite and its potential uses in agriculture: A critical review. Agric. Rev. 2016, 37, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. De Smedt, C.; Someus, E.; Spanoghe, P. Potential and actual uses of zeolites in crop protection. Pest Manag. Sci. 2015, 71, 1355–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ramesh, K.; Biswas, A.K.; Somasundaram, J.; Rao, A.S. Nanoporous zeolites in farming: Current status and issues ahead. Curr. Sci. 2010, 99, 760–764. [Google Scholar]
  43. Barrer, R.M. Expanded clay minerals: A major class of molecular sieves. J. Incl. Phenom. 1986, 4, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Coombs, D.S.; Alberti, A.; Armbruster, T.; Artioli, G.; Colella, C.; Galli, E.; Grice, J.D.; Liebau, F.; Mandarino, J.A.; Minato, H.; et al. Recommended nomenclature for zeolite minerals; report of the Subcommittee on Zeolites of the International Mineralogical Association, Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names. EJM 1998, 10, 1037–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Jacobs, P.A.; Flanigen, E.M.; Jansen, J.C.; van Bekkum, H. Introduction to Zeolite Science and Practice; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001; pp. 11–35. [Google Scholar]
  46. Petrov, I.; Michalev, T. Synthesis of zeolite A: A review. Научни трудoве на русенския университет 2012, 51, 30–35. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lok, B.M.; Cannan, T.; Messina, C.A. The role of organic molecules in molecular sieve synthesis. Zeolites 1983, 3, 282–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rhodes, C.J. Properties and applications of zeolites. Sci. Prog. 2010, 93, 223–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ren, X.; Xiao, L.; Qu, R.; Liu, S.; Ye, D.; Song, H.; Wu, W.; Zheng, C.; Wu, X.; Gao, X. Synthesis and characterization of a single phase zeolite A using coal fly ash. RSC Adv. 2018, 8, 42200–42209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Hedström, A. Ion exchange of ammonium in zeolites: A literature review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2001, 127, 673–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Morris, R.E.; Nachtigall, P. (Eds.) Zeolites in Catalysis: Properties and Applications; Royal Society of Chemistry: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  52. Sand, L.B.; Mumpton, F.A. Natural Zeolites: Occurrence, Properties, and Use (No. CONF-760626-(Exc.)); Pergamon Press, Inc.: Elmsford, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  53. Auerbach, S.M.; Carrado, K.A.; Dutta, P.K. Handbook of Zeolite Science and Technology; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  54. Bhattacharyya, T.; Chandran, P.; Ray, S.K.; Pal, D.K.; Mandal, C.; Mandal, D.K. Distribution of zeolitic soils in India. Curr. Sci. 2015, 109, 1305–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lee, Y.; Vogt, T.; Hriljac, J.A.; Parise, J.B.; Hanson, J.C.; Kim, S.J. Non-framework cation migration and irreversible pressure-induced hydration in a zeolite. Nature 2002, 420, 485–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Newsam, J.M.; Treacy, M.M.; Koetsier, W.T.; Gruyter, C.D. Structural characterization of zeolite beta. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys. Sci. 1988, 420, 375–405. [Google Scholar]
  57. Davis, M.E. Zeolites and molecular sieves: Not just ordinary catalysts. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1991, 30, 1675–1683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Olson, D.H.; Dempsey, E. The crystal structure of the zeolite hydrogen faujasite. J. Catal. 1969, 13, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Colella, C. Ion exchange equilibria in zeolite minerals. Miner. Depos. 1996, 31, 554–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Blanchard, G.; Maunaye, M.; Martin, G. Removal of heavy metals from waters by means of natural zeolites. Water Res. 1984, 18, 1501–1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Freeman Jr, D.C.; Stamires, D.N. Electrical conductivity of synthetic crystalline zeolites. J. Chem. Phys. 1961, 35, 799–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gevorkyan, R.G.; Sargsyan, H.H.; Karamyan, G.G.; Keheyan, Y.M.; Yeritsyan, H.N.; Hovhannesyan, A.S.; Sahakyan, A.A. Study of absorption properties of modified zeolites. Geochemistry 2002, 62, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Feliczak-Guzik, A. Hierarchical zeolites: Synthesis and catalytic properties. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2018, 259, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Cerri, G.; Farina, M.; Brundu, A.; Daković, A.; Giunchedi, P.; Gavini, E.; Rassu, G. Natural zeolites for pharmaceutical formulations: Preparation and evaluation of a clinoptilolite-based material. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2016, 223, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. He, Z.L.; Calvert, D.V.; Alva, A.K.; Li, Y.C.; Banks, D.J. Clinoptilolite zeolite and cellulose amendments to reduce ammonia volatilization in a calcareous sandy soil. Plant Soil 2002, 247, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hershey, D.R.; Paul, J.L.; Carlson, R.M. Evaluation of potassium-enriched clinoptilolite as a potassium source for potting media. Hort Sci. 1980, 15, 8. [Google Scholar]
  67. del Pino, J.N.; Padrón, I.A.; Martin, M.G.; Hernández, J.G. Phosphorus and potassium release from phillipsite-based slow-release fertilizers. J. Control Release 1995, 34, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Dwairi, I.M. Evaluation of Jordanian zeolite tuff as a controlled slow-release fertilizer for NH4+. Environ. Geol. 1998, 34, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Li, Z. Use of surfactant-modified zeolite as fertilizer carriers to control nitrate release. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2003, 61, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bansiwal, A.K.; Rayalu, S.S.; Labhasetwar, N.K.; Juwarkar, A.A.; Devotta, S. Surfactant-modified zeolite as a slow release fertilizer for phosphorus. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 4773–4779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Barbarick, K.A.; Lai, T.M.; Eberl, D.D. Exchange Fertilizer (Phosphate Rock plus Ammonium-Zeolite) Effects on Sorghum-Sudangrass. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1990, 54, 911–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Li, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Y. Zeolite as slow release fertilizer on spinach yields and quality in a greenhouse test. J. Plant Nutr. 2013, 36, 1496–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mohammad, M.J.; Karam, N.S.; Al-Lataifeh, N.K. Response of croton grown in a zeolite-containing substrate to different concentrations of fertilizer solution. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2005, 35, 2283–2297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kavoosi, M. Effects of zeolite application on rice yield, nitrogen recovery, and nitrogen use efficiency. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2007, 38, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ahmed, O.H.; Sumalatha, G.; Muhamad, A.N. Use of zeolite in maize (Zea mays) cultivation on nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus uptake and use efficiency. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 2010, 5, 2393–2401. [Google Scholar]
  76. Kralova, M.; Hrozinkova, A.; Ruzek, P.; Kovanda, F.; Kolousek, D. Synthetic and Natural Zeolites Affecting the Physicochemical Soil Properties; Rostlinna Vyroba-UZPI: Praha, Czech Republic, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  77. DeSutter, T.M.; Pierzynski, G.M. Evaluation of soils for use as liner materials: A soil chemistry approach. J. Environ. 2005, 34, 951–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Yasuda, H.; Takuma, K.; Fukuda, T.; Araki, Y.; Suzuka, J.; Fukushima, Y. Effects of zeolite on water and salt control in soil. Bull. Fac. Agric. Tottori Univ. Jpn. 1998, 51, 35–42. [Google Scholar]
  79. Doni, S.; Gispert, M.; Peruzzi, E.; Macci, C.; Mattii, G.B.; Manzi, D.; Masini, C.M.; Grazia, M. Impact of natural zeolite on chemical and biochemical properties of vineyard soils. Soil Use Manag. 2020, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. de Campos Bernardi, A.C.; Oliviera, P.P.A.; de Melo Monte, M.B.; Souza-Barros, F. Brazilian sedimentary zeolite use in agriculture. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2013, 167, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Mazur, G.A.; Medvid, G.K.; Grigora, T.I. Use of natural zeolites for increasing the fertility of light textured soils. Pochvovedenie 1984, 10, 70–77. [Google Scholar]
  82. Bouzo, L.; Lopez, M.; Villegas, R.; Garcia, E.; Acosta, J.A. Use of natural zeolites to increase yields in sugarcane crop minimizing environmental pollution. In Proceedings of the15th World Congress of Soil Science, Acapulco, Mexico, 10–16 July 1994; pp. 695–701. [Google Scholar]
  83. Chander, K.; Joergensen, R.G. Decomposition of 14C labelled glucose in a Pb-contaminated soil remediated with synthetic zeolite and other amendments. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2002, 34, 643–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Fernández-Pérez, M. Controlled release systems to prevent the agro-environmental pollution derived from pesticide use. J. Environ. Health 2007, 42, 857–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Bottero, J.Y.; Khatib, K.; Thomas, F.; Jucker, K.; Bersillon, J.L.; Mallevialle, J. Adsorption of atrazine onto zeolites and organoclays, in the presence of background organics. Water Resear. 1994, 28, 483–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Corma, A.; Garcia, H. Zeolite-based photocatalysts. Chem. Commun. 2004, 1443–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Walcarius, A.; Mouchotte, R. Efficient in vitro paraquat removal via irreversible immobilization into zeolite particles. Arch. Environ. Contamin. Toxicol. 2004, 46, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Zhang, H.; Kim, Y.; Dutta, P.K. Controlled release of paraquat from surface-modified zeolite Y. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2006, 88, 312–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Bakhtiary, S.; Shirvani, M.; Shariatmadari, H. Adsorption–desorption behavior of 2,4-D on NCP-modified bentonite and zeolite: Implications for slow-release herbicide formulations. Chemosphere 2013, 90, 699–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Shirvani, M.; Farajollahi, E.; Bakhtiari, S.; Ogunseitan, O.A. Mobility and efficacy of 2,4-D herbicide from slow-release delivery systems based on organo-zeolite and organo-bentonite complexes. J. Environ. Healh Part B 2014, 49, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Zwolak, A.; Sarzyńska, M.; Szpyrka, E.; Stawarczyk, K. Sources of soil pollution by heavy metals and their accumulation in vegetables: A review. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2019, 230, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Bolan, N.S.; Duraisamy, V.P. Role of inorganic and organic soil amendments on immobilisation and phytoavailability of heavy metals: A review involving specific case studies. Soil Res. 2003, 41, 533–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kumar, P.; Jadhav, P.D.; Rayalu, S.S.; Devotta, S. Surface-modified zeolite–A for sequestration of arsenic and chromium anions. Curr. Sci. 2007, 512–517. [Google Scholar]
  94. Tashauoei, H.R.; Attar, H.M.; Amin, M.M.; Kamali, M.; Nikaeen, M.; Dastjerdi, M.V. Removal of cadmium and humic acid from aqueous solutions using surface modified nanozeolite A. IJEST 2010, 7, 497–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Ponizovsky, A.A.; Tsadilas, C.D. Lead (II) retention by Alfisol and clinoptilolite: Cation balance and pH effect. Geoderma 2003, 115, 303–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Nishita, H.; Haug, R.M. Influence of clinoptilolite on Sr90 and Cs137 uptakes by plants. Soil Sci. 1972, 114, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Zorpas, A.A.; Vassilis, I.; Loizidou, M.; Grigoropoulou, H. Particle size effects on uptake of heavy metals from sewage sludge compost using natural zeolite clinoptilolite. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2002, 250, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Xiubin, H.; Zhanbin, H. Zeolite application for enhancing water infiltration and retention in loess soil. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2001, 34, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Chmielewska, E. Designing clinoptiloliterich tuff columns for adsorptive filtration of water with enhanced ammonium concentration. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2014, 23, 1277–1283. [Google Scholar]
  100. Huang, Z.T.; Petrovic, A.M. Physical properties of sand as affected by clinoptilolite zeolite particle size and quantity. J. Turfgrass Manag. 1994, 1, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Bigelow, C.A.; Bowman, D.C.; Cassel, D.K.; Rufty, T.W., Jr. Creeping bentgrass response to inorganic soil amendments and mechanically induced subsurface drainage and aeration. Crop Sci. 2001, 41, 797–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Gholamhoseini, M.; Ghalavand, A.; Khodaei-Joghan, A.; Dolatabadian, A.; Zakikhani, H.; Farmanbar, E. Zeolite-amended cattle manure effects on sunflower yield, seed quality, water use efficiency and nutrient leaching. Soil Tillage Res. 2013, 126, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lal, R.; Shukla, M.K. Principles of Soil Physics; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  104. Githinji, L.J.; Dane, J.H.; Walker, R.H. Physical and hydraulic properties of inorganic amendments and modeling their effects on water movement in sand-based root zones. Irrigat. Sci. 2011, 29, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Waltz, F.C.; Quisenberry, V.L.; McCarty, L.B. Physical and hydraulic properties of rootzone mixes amended with inorganics for golf putting greens. J. Agron. 2003, 95, 395–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Gholizadeh-Sarabi, S.; Sepaskhah, A.R. Effect of zeolite and saline water application on saturated hydraulic conductivity and infiltration in different soil textures. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2013, 59, 753–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Ozbahce, A.; Tari, A.F.; Gönülal, E.; Simsekli, N.; Padem, H. The effect of zeolite applications on yield components and nutrient uptake of common bean under water stress. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2015, 61, 615–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Chen, T.; Wilson, L.T.; Liang, Q.; Xia, G.; Chen, W.; Chi, D. Influences of irrigation, nitrogen and zeolite management on the physicochemical properties of rice. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2017, 63, 1210–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Sun, Y.; He, Z.; Wu, Q.; Zheng, J.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Chen, T.; Chi, D. Zeolite amendment enhances rice production, nitrogen accumulation and translocation in wetting and drying irrigation paddy field. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 235, 106126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Al-Busaidi, A.; Yamamoto, T.; Inoue, M.; Eneji, A.E.; Mori, Y.; Irshad, M. Effects of zeolite on soil nutrients and growth of barley following irrigation with saline water. J. Plant Nutr. 2008, 31, 1159–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Bernal, M.P.; Lopez-Real, J.M. Natural zeolites and sepiolite as ammonium and ammonia adsorbent materials. Bioresour. Technol. 1993, 43, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Kithome, M.; Paul, J.W.; Lavkulich, L.M.; Bomke, A.A. Effect of pH on ammonium adsorption by natural zeolite clinoptilolite. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1999, 30, 1417–1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Awasthi, M.K.; Wang, Q.; Ren, X.; Zhao, J.; Huang, H.; Awasthi, S.K.; Lahori, A.H.; Li, R.; Zhou, L.; Zhang, Z. Role of biochar amendment in mitigation of nitrogen loss and greenhouse gas emission during sewage sludge composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 219, 270–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Chan, M.T.; Selvam, A.; Wong, J.W. Reducing nitrogen loss and salinity during ‘struvite’food waste composting by zeolite amendment. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 200, 838–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Wang, Q.; Awasthi, M.K.; Ren, X.; Zhao, J.; Li, R.; Wang, Z.; Wang, M.; Chen, H.; Zhang, Z. Combining biochar, zeolite and wood vinegar for composting of pig manure: The effect on greenhouse gas emission and nitrogen conservation. Waste Manag. 2018, 74, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Rumbos, C.I.; Sakka, M.; Berillis, P.; Athanassiou, C.G. Insecticidal potential of zeolite formulations against three stored-grain insects, particle size effect, adherence to kernels and influence on test weight of grains. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2016, 68, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Floros, G.D.; Kokkari, A.I.; Kouloussis, N.A.; Kantiranis, N.A.; Damos, P.; Filippidis, A.A.; Koveos, D.S. Evaluation of the natural zeolite lethal effects on adults of the bean weevil under different temperatures and relative humidity regimes. J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 482–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Calzarano, F.; Valentini, G.; Arfelli, G.; Seghetti, L.; Manetta, A.C.; Metruccio, E.G.; Di Marco, S. Activity of Italian natural chabasite-rich zeolitites against grey mould, sour rot and grapevine moth, and effects on grape and wine composition. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2019, 58, 307–321. [Google Scholar]
  119. Eroglu, N.; Sakka, M.K.; Emekci, M.; Athanassiou, C.G. Effects of zeolite formulations on the mortality and progeny production of Sitophilus oryzae and Oryzaephilus surinamensis at different temperature and relative humidity levels. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2019, 81, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Montanari, T.; Busca, G. On the mechanism of adsorption and separation of CO2 on LTA zeolites: An IR investigation. Vib. Spectrosc. 2008, 46, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Long, S.P.; Ainsworth, E.A.; Rogers, A.; Ort, D.R. Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide: Plants FACE the future. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2004, 55, 591–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Ainsworth, E.A.; Rogers, A. The response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance to rising [CO2]: Mechanisms and environmental interactions. Plant Cell Environ. 2007, 30, 258–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Jifon, J.L.; Syvertsen, J.P. Kaolin Particle Film Applications Can Increase Photosynthesis and Water Use Efficiency ofRuby Red’Grapefruit Leaves. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. 2003, 128, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Glenn, D.M.; Erez, A.; Puterka, G.J.; Gundrum, P. Particle films affect carbon assimilation and yield in ‘Empire’ apple. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. 2003, 128, 356–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Abou-Khaled, A.; Hagan, R.M.; Davenport, D.C. Effects of kaolinite as a reflective antitranspirant on leaf temperature, transpiration, photosynthesis, and water-use efficiency. Water Resour. Res. 1970, 6, 280–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Bergero, D.; Boccignone, M.; Di Natale, F.; Forneris, G.; Palmegiano, G.B.; Roagna, L.; Sicuro, B. Ammonia removal capacity of European natural zeolite tuffs: Application to aquaculture waste water. Aquac. Res. 1994, 25, 813–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Asgharimoghadam, A.; Gharedaashi, E.; Montajami, S.; Nekoubin, H.; Salamroudi, M.; Jafariyan, H. Effect of clinoptilolite zeolite to prevent mortality of beluga (Huso huso) by total ammonia concentration. Glob. Vet. 2012, 9, 80–84. [Google Scholar]
  128. Shurson, G.C.; Ku, P.K.; Miller, E.R.; Yokoyama, M.T. Effects of zeolite A or clinoptilolite in diets of growing swine. J. Anim. Sci. 1984, 59, 1536–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  129. Sadeghi, A.A.; Shawrang, P. Effects of natural zeolite clinoptilolite on passive immunity and diarrhea in newborn Holstein calves. Livest. Sci. 2008, 113, 307–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Toprak, N.N.; Yılmaz, A.; Öztürk, E.; Yigit, O.; Cedden, F. Effect of micronized zeolite addition to lamb concentrate feeds on growth performance and some blood chemistry and metabolites. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 46, 313–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Papaioannou, D.; Katsoulos, P.D.; Panousis, N.; Karatzias, H. The role of natural and synthetic zeolites as feed additives on the prevention and/or the treatment of certain farm animal diseases: A review. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2005, 84, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Representative formulae and selected physical properties of important zeolites. Reproduced from [38], with permission from “Copyright (1999) National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.”. * Calculated from unit-cell formula.
Table 1. Representative formulae and selected physical properties of important zeolites. Reproduced from [38], with permission from “Copyright (1999) National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.”. * Calculated from unit-cell formula.
ZeoliteRepresentative Unit-Cell FormulaVoid Volume,
%
Channel Dimensions,
Å
Thermal Stability
(Relative)
CEC, meq/g *
AnalcimeNa10(Al16Si32O96) ●16H2O182.6High4.54
Chabazite(Na2Ca)6(Al12Si24O72) ●40H2O473.7 × 4.2High3.84
Clinoptilolite(Na3K3)(Al6Si30O72) ●24H2O343.9 × 5.4High2.16
Erionite(NaCa0.5K)9(Al9Si27O72) ●27H2O353.6 × 5.2High3.12
Faujasite(Na58)(Al58Si134O384)●240H2O477.4High3.39
Ferrierite(Na2Mg2)(Al6Si30O72) ●18H2O284.3 × 5.5High2.33
Heulandite(Ca4)(Al8Si28O72) ●24H2O394.0 × 5.54.4 × 7.24.1 × 4.7Low2.91
Laumonitte(Ca4)(Al8Si16O48) ●16H2O344.6 × 6.3Low4.25
Mordenite(Na8)(Al8Si40O96) ●24H2O282.9 × 5.76.7 × 7.0High2.29
Phillipsite(NaK)5(Al5Si11O32) ●20H2O314.2 × 4.42.8 × 4.83.3Medium3.31
Linde A(Na12)(Al12Si12O48) ●27H2O474.2High5.48
Linde X(Na86)(Al86Si106O384) ●264H2O507.4High4.73
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cataldo, E.; Salvi, L.; Paoli, F.; Fucile, M.; Masciandaro, G.; Manzi, D.; Masini, C.M.; Mattii, G.B. Application of Zeolites in Agriculture and Other Potential Uses: A Review. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1547. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081547

AMA Style

Cataldo E, Salvi L, Paoli F, Fucile M, Masciandaro G, Manzi D, Masini CM, Mattii GB. Application of Zeolites in Agriculture and Other Potential Uses: A Review. Agronomy. 2021; 11(8):1547. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081547

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cataldo, Eleonora, Linda Salvi, Francesca Paoli, Maddalena Fucile, Grazia Masciandaro, Davide Manzi, Cosimo Maria Masini, and Giovan Battista Mattii. 2021. "Application of Zeolites in Agriculture and Other Potential Uses: A Review" Agronomy 11, no. 8: 1547. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081547

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop