Talk:Zeolite

oxygen concentrator
A Zeolite bed is the core of an oxygen concentrator. The pressure swing adsorption process uses zeolite as a molecular sieve. Room air is compressed into a zeolite bed, then the remaining air components are drawn off. The bed is then released to atmosphere, the zeolite releases the nitrogen, and the process is restarted. By removing the nitrogen from regular air, you get a mixture of mostly oxygen with traces of carbon dioxide and Argon.

A german company is using those stones to generate cold. Bildunterschrift from Zeotech.


 * Should OBOGS be combined with this? Hcobb (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Uses: Medical
Unless someone can put some citations into that mess of a paragraph about QuikClot to clear up whether it's calcium silicate (which the New Scientist article seems to refute, given that it mentions an alternative to QuikClot being made of calcium and silica) or a zeolite (which the New Scientist article doens't explicitly state), the whole thing should be deleted or remarked out of existence until it can properly cited. dil 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The clinical study cited at [10] http://www.panaceo.hr/download/Clinical%20evidence%20supporting%20the%20use%20of%20an%20activated%20clinoptilolite%20suspension%20as%20an%20agent%20to%20increase%20urinary%20excretion%20of%20toxic%20heavy%20metals.pdf is not a double blinded study. It had a control group, but neither the group nor the experimenters were blinded, and the control samples were not even tested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.128.51 (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

CO2 entrapment
An advance has reportedly been made in "trapping" CO2 molecules in ZIFs, or zeolitic imidazolate frameworks. I'm unsure if it should be covered here as I'm not too well introduced in the subject, but I'm posting the link FYI and also did in the external links section: http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/material-selectively-swallows-co2-15480.html What I'm wondering is if it should have an extra mention in the "Uses" section, or if this is somehow too unrelated for that. &mdash; Northgrove 01:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

ZIFs are not zeolites. They are a subclass of metal-organic materials that have imidazolate as organic linker and a zeolite-like topology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.197.43 (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Where's the Water
2nd sentence: "The term was originally coined in the 18th century by a Swedish mineralogist named Axel Fredrik Cronstedt who observed, upon rapidly heating a natural mineral, that the stones began to dance about as the water evaporated." "...the water..."? What water, Fire-water? It's good someone cares enough about etymology to try- but this purported explanation explains little to me; I cant even understand it well enough to correct it- nor should I, because as an article opening it serves as a warning, to question or review the subsequent techinical writing. Hilarleo (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've fixed it and added a reference. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Clinoptilolite and mercury poison
Clinoptilolite is being touted as "cure-all" for mercury poisoning (Chronic not acute). Has any scientific analysis been performed on the exchange/capture properties of this version of a zeolite for mercury ? If so should it be posted here - either for or against ?(Ukbrit (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

There is a study here: http://www.dovepress.com/clinical-evidence-supporting-the-use-of-an-activated-clinoptilolite-su-peer-reviewed-article-NDS (˜˜˜˜). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacqueshb (talk • contribs) 09:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Picture
The picture labeled "zeolite" needs a more descriptive caption. There are (as of writing) 179 different zeolite frameworks, and the mineral shown could be any one of the 48 or so different naturally-occurring zeolites. Kaiserkarl13 (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Scope of article
The emphasis of this article is heavily skewed towards mineralogy. Synthetic zeolites are important as industrial catalysts, and there is little mention of their preparation, properties, uses, or unique structures.

Natural Zeolites
This article states that there are 80 naturally occurring zeolite frameworks, but the citation provided does not list 80 unique zeolites. For example, Chabazite-K and Chabazite-Ca are NOT unique frameworks; they're both CHA. Similarly, faujasite-Ca and faujasite-Na are the same structure (FAU) with different counter-ions (they're also the same as NaY, HY, NaX, CsX, and a bunch of other synthetic zeolites that have different ions and/or compositions but the same framework connectivity). The number this refers to should reflect the number of frameworks (of the 179 currently discovered) that occur naturally, NOT the number of names we've come up with to describe different compositions of the same material. Kaiserkarl13 (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It did not say 80 naturally occurring zeolite "frameworks" - it was referring to zeolite minerals. And chabazite-K is a different recognized mineral from chabazite-Ca. The website referenced lists naturally occurring recognized minerals. We do need to separate the mineralogy discussion from the synthetic commercial stuff to avoid the above confusion. Vsmith (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Lexical form of the Greek root word
Even though some sites give zein as the lemma of the root of the word, that is actually the infinitive form—the usual lexical form for ancient Greek is the indicative form, which is zeō (cf. %CE%B6%CE%AD%CF%89). 24.243.3.27 (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And, just so it's not WP:OR, here is a source that gives the proper lexical form in connection with the etymology of the word zeolite: (PDF, p. 37 [thesis p. 28], § 2.4.1 Zeolites). 24.243.3.27 (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Use as nutritional supplement
Wikipedia should reflect reality, the real life. In real life, zeolites are widely used as nutritional supplements. (As of now, Google search 'zeolite supplements' returns 470,000 hits.) So this should be reflected in Wikipedia somehow. Yet, up to now, this was not reflected in Wikipedia in any way. Do we see a problem here? --Dyuku (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia needn't reflect google advertising spam, not here to promote stuff. How 'bout google scholar? Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Zeolites have negatively charged frameworks
Nowhere does it say that zeolites have negatively charged frameworks, it is implicit in the only chemical formula quoted. The charged framework is why ion exchange happens and why zeolite acids cane be formed. There are neutral molecular sieves such as aluminophosphates. Axiosaurus (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed for better explanation and reference
I've removed the following recently added bit:
 * . Certain zeolites also possess the ability to decompose when they come in direct or indirect contact with Heat and Moisture.

as it is unsourced and needs a more explanation and detail. Which "certain zeolites"? ... Vsmith (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed the sentence. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

detergent manufacture
The article tells us that detergent manufacture is the largest use of zeolites, but then fails to tell us anything else. If this is the largest use, I'm sure it deserves more than a single sentence. At the very least, the article could tell us whether the zeolites are used as a catalyst in the manufacture, as a reactant, or one of the ingredients of the product. FreeFlow99 (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Symbol needs explanation
T5O10 and T10O20 symbols should be explained, since the periodic table has no element T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.192.37 (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done (T = combined Si and Al). Vsmith (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Zeolites and cancer
Several editors tried to include paragraphs on medical use of zeolite or paragraphs on zeolite as nutricional supplement. These paragraphs have always been removed by other editors with an explanation, that medical articles have not been published in peer reviewed journals, or that this is a fringe science, or that there are no proofs of relationship between zeolite and cancer treatment. Yesterday an article published in one of the leading journals was added to the article and it was soon removed. It is also a fact that many people, especially in Eastern Europe, believe that zeolites cure cancer. Probably they are wrong. However, the fact that there is such a great interest in this issue, this issue deserves at least a short paragraph in wikipedia. Those searching or googling for zeolite are mostly interested in its medical use (see google search suggestions) and they deserve to get at least one short paragraph. Another issue is, what should be included. It is undisputed that there are medical articles in highest ranked journals on this subject. It is also undisputed that these articles come mostly from the same authors from Croatia. It is also undisputed that this is what could be called fringe science, because mainstream science does not follow their view. It is also undisputed that some companies, mostly in Central and Eastern Europe (Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia), promote zeolite as a cancer cure. It is also undisputed that many people search for answers on wikipedia on this subject (see google search suggestions: zeolite benefits, zeolite side effects, zeolite cancer, zeolite wikipedia). Therefore I suggest that a short paragraph on this subject should be included. It should not promote zeolite. It is acceptable to note that zeolite medical use is promoted by fringe science and that its benefits are not proven. Maybe an article should read something like this: A group of Croatian researchers has published an article on natural zeolite clinoptilote effects on cancer treatment (Pavelić, K., Hadžija, M., Bedrica, L., Pavelić, J., Ðikić, I., Katić, M., ... & Čolić, M. (2001). Natural zeolite clinoptilolite: new adjuvant in anticancer therapy. Journal of Molecular Medicine, 78(12), 708-720.). Several other articles have been published by same authors. No other authors or studies have confirmed or denied the relationship between zeolite and cancer. Croatian company Panaceo (www.panaceo.hr) promotes zeolite as a cancer- treating and other deseases- treating cure in Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, Austria, Bosnia, and some other neighbouring countries (panaceo.si, panaceo.at). The relationship between authors of the article and the zeolite sellers is unknown, but they are both from Croatia. 31.15.180.165 (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems the research mentioned above was published 14 years ago. What has been published since and how was that research received? The fact that the researchers are from Croatia and the companies promoting the use are also Croatian is problematic. Also the content you added to the article contained inline website addresses for the companies promoting the use of zeolites. Vsmith (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not know how what has been published since and I do not know how the research was received. The article has been cited numerous times but it seems that its views were not widely accepted by the mainstream science. And yes, both researchers and companies are from Croatia and this is problematic and it should be noted in the article. Readers should be warned about this, don't you agree? It would be great if you can shorten my paragraph and rephrase it in the way that is acceptable.164.8.114.22 (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The internet is full of bogus claims of all types. We don't report on an old unverified medical claim. Lacking WP:reliable sources we cannot include such questionable content nor "warn" anyone. Vsmith (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Highly ranked scientific journals (this medical journal has impact factor over 5 which is one of the highest in the world) is not unreliable source. This claim was made by 5 or more scientists (university professors) and it was repeated or cited in numerous other articles (over 100 citations of this article in SCI Thimson Reuters and in Google Scholar. It seems that you are the first medicine scholar refuting their claim and calling it "bogus". Research, which is 14 years old and repeated in several other articles over these 14 years by several different authors is not old. You are a leading wiki expert and you are an expert on what is meant by "reliable" and "old" but I understand that this research is not old and it is reliable enough to be mentioned. Can you ask some other wiki expert to give their opinion on "old" and "reliable" here? Thanks. 92.37.58.116 (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ratchet things down a notch. I did not say that study was "bogus", rather I made a general observation re: internet claims. You stated that you didn't know "how the research was received" and "not widely accepted by the mainstream science". I am not a "medicine scholar". Do you have a WP:conflict of interest here? Vsmith (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not have a WP:conflict of interest. Do not know any of the researchers or any of the product sellers. However, I hear arguments in favor of zeolite medical use and arguments against it daily from many medical doctors and others. I did some online research and found out it all comes from Croatia and spreads to Serbia, Slovenia, Austria. Discussion on medical zeolite use became big (as noted, numerous citations). I do not understand why you disagree with having this topic covered by a couple of sentences. Research is published in a reliable journal and it is not old. Yes, you are right, I did say that I do not know "how the research was received" because I did not read any of the 100+ articles that cite this research. I am afraid you have some conflict of interest here? Since we concluded that research is not old, the journal is reliable, it is cited in over 100 articles, what will be your next argument not to include a sentence mentioning zeolite and cancer? Would you agree with something like "Individual studies have claimed that zeolite might be successful in curing or preventing cancer, but further medical research did not confirm this claim."? Is this balanced enough? 92.37.58.116 (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "might be successful..." and "...further medical research did not confirm this claim." pretty well sums it up. Why would we state such unconfirmed claims regarding cancer treatment in an article on a mineral group? If it is significant - then it should be covered in an article on cancer treatments. But, from what you say, the status of the research is questionable and thus likely falls under fringe theories. Perhaps you should ask at the fringe noticeboard. As to COI, I'm a retired educator/farmer/geologist. Vsmith (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's go back before you started going personal. I suggested a paragraph and you responded: "Seems the research mentioned above was published 14 years ago. What has been published since and how was that research received? The fact that the researchers are from Croatia and the companies promoting the use are also Croatian is problematic. Also the content you added to the article contained inline website addresses for the companies promoting the use of zeolites." Therefore your arguments were that (a) the research is "old" and (b) that it is problematic because both the company and the researchers were from Croatia and (c)article contained inline website addresses for the companies. Then I argued that (a) 14 years is not old (b) we can include this info in the article if you think it is problematic and (c) I agreed with you that we remove these web addresses. Then you did not respond to any of these three issues. It seems that issues (b) and (c) are solved, so just respond if you still believe that (a) research is old? 92.37.58.116 (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's not. Rather, you could address the points just above. Vsmith (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Zeolites Causing Cancer
Zeolites are suspected to be a cause of Mesothelioma Mesothelioma Causes & Risk Factors Risk Factors for Malignant Mesothelioma Malignant mesothelioma induced by asbestos and zeolite in the mouse peritoneal cavity. Zeolite and Mesothelioma Prospective Study of Mesothelioma Mortality in Turkish Villages With Exposure to Fibrous Zeolite 2601:18D:4500:EA0:79E1:C491:AE2C:274D (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Zeolite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090215184310/http://www.grace.com:80/EngineeredMaterials/MaterialSciences/Zeolites/ZeoliteStructure.aspx to http://www.grace.com/EngineeredMaterials/MaterialSciences/Zeolites/ZeoliteStructure.aspx
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110910220215/http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/technology/trends3/solutions3/obogs.html?c=13 to http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/technology/trends3/solutions3/obogs.html?c=13

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at

).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you get stuff back out?
If stuff is captured by a zeolite filter, is that it? Are there ways to (easily) get it back out? Like, for example, you trap a short lived radioactive substance in zeolite but after a couple of years it has decayed and you'd really want to get the decay product out because it is valuable. Would such a thing be possible? If so, how? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Zeolites are ion exchangers, so yes, whatever you put onto zeolites can then be released. However, if you put some sort of ion/molecular that interacts really strongly with the framework it might be hard to remove it. Carlosbornes (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)