Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T02:50:40.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Natural Antibacterial Clays: Historical Uses and Modern Advances

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Lynda B. Williams*
Affiliation:
School of Earth & Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1404, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Antibacterial clays in nature include a variety of clay mineral assemblages that are capable of killing certain human pathogens. Although clays have been used for medicinal applications historically, only in the last decade have analytical methods and instrumentation been developed that allow researchers to evaluate the antibacterial mechanisms of various clays applied medicinally. Comparisons of the mineralogical and chemical compositions of natural clays that kill bacteria have promoted a better understanding of the mineral properties that are toxic to a broad-spectrum of human pathogens, including bacteria that have developed resistance to antibiotics. Popular literature is filled with reports of ‘healing’ clays, that, when tested against pathogens in vitro and compared to controls, do not appear to have bactericidal properties. It is important, however, to differentiate what properties make a clay ‘healing,’ versus what makes a clay ‘antibacterial.’ Most antibacterial clays identified to date buffer pH conditions of a hydrated clay outside the range of conditions in which human pathogens thrive (circum-neutral pH) and require oxidation reactions to occur. It is the change in oxidation state and pH imposed by the hydrated clay, applied topically, that leads to a chemical attack of the bacteria. Healing clays, on the other hand, may not kill bacteria but have soothing effects that are palliative. This article reviews some of the historical uses of clays in medicine but focuses primarily on the common characteristics of natural antibacterial clays and early studies of their antibacterial mechanisms. In this era of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, mimicking the antibacterial mechanisms exhibited by natural clays could be advantageous in the development of new antimicrobial agents.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Clay Minerals Society 2019
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Line Brunet de Courssou, a French researcher, documented healing of Buruli ulcer in patients from the Ivory Coast, using French green clay poultices applied daily and cleansed with saline solution between dressings. The M. ulcerans infection, unresponsive to known antibiotics at the time, was cured by the clay treatment (photos by Thierry Brunet)

Figure 1

Fig. 2 Summary of the mineralogy of two French green clays used to treat Buruli ulcer in the Ivory coast (Argicur = dark bars; Argiletz = light bars) (reproduced, with permission, from Williams, 2017)

Figure 2

Fig. 3 (a) Volcanic ash deposits, (b) bentonite and hydrothermal fluids alter pyroclastics to produce (c) smectite, which incorporates reduced metals and with increasing temperature forms illite. The antibacterial clays contain primarily mixed-layered illite-smectite, but some kaolinites have also been found to be antibacterial (Lodoño et al., 2017): Bentonite photo (b) by W. Crawford Elliott)

Figure 3

Fig. 4 Flow chart showing the approach to studying what makes clays antibacterial (after Konhauser & Urrutia, 1999)

Figure 4

Fig. 5 Transmission electron microscope image of a cyanobacterial cell encrusted in clay minerals oriented tangentially to the surface (after Konhauser & Urrutia, 1999)

Figure 5

Fig. 6 Measurements of the zeta potential of an antibacterial clay (AMZ from the Colombian Amazon), compared to the surface charge of Gram-negative (E. coli) and Gram-positive (B. subtilis) bacteria in an aqueous suspension equilibrated with the clay for 24 h (after Lodoño and Williams, 2016)

Figure 6

Fig. 7 An experiment to determine if clays (in aqueous suspension) kill bacteria by chemical or physical means. (a) E. coli grown to log phase in growth media are placed in dialysis tubing precluding particle interactions but allowing chemical diffusion across the 25 kD membrane when submerged into a clay suspension. (b) Live/Dead epifluorescence staining (Invitrogen) shows the killing of bacteria after 24 h (reproduced with permission from Williams et al., 2011)

Figure 7

Fig. 8 Test of particle size on the antibacterial effectiveness of the French green clays against E. coli (reproduced with permission from Williams & Haydel, 2010)

Figure 8

Fig. 9 Schematic diagram showing different bacterial cell membrane structures for Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and mycobacteria (reproduced from Williams and Haydel, 2010, with the permission of The Clay Minerals Society)

Figure 9

Fig. 10 Methods for evaluating antibacterial susceptibility. (a) Plate counting serial dilutions of bacteria treated with clay. (b) Disk diffusion method showing zones of bacterial growth inhibition around an aliquot of hydrated clay placed on a plate where bacteria are well established

Figure 10

Fig. 11 Results of bacterial susceptibility testing by plate counting planktonic bacteria in vitro. (a) French green clays; (b) acidic reduced Fe-clays from USA. Error bars represent standard deviations from triplicate experiments

Figure 11

Table 1 Antibacterial effectiveness of four reduced iron clays indicated by percent reduction of the bacterial population over the indicated incubation time at 37°C. All experiments performed in triplicate

Figure 12

Table 2 Chemical analysis by ICP-MS comparing aqueous leachates of two antibacterial clays: one alkaline and one acidic

Figure 13

Table 3 Comparison of the mineralogy of several antibacterial clays determined by random powder X-ray diffraction (CuKα radiation; quantified using RockJock (Eberl, 2003))

Figure 14

Fig. 12 A comparison of antibacterial clays identified to date show that a suspension of the clay in water, equilibrated for 24 h, buffers the fluid pH and Eh to conditions where aluminosilicates are soluble. This solubility releases reactants that interact with microbes to cause bactericidal reactions

Figure 15

Fig. 13 Eh-pH stability plots (25°C) for (a) Fe-S-OH and (b) Al-OH (Svensson et al., 2017) showing the range of antibacterial and non-antibacterial clay suspensions (Williams, 2017)

Figure 16

Fig. 14 Time-series TEM images of E. coli reacted with OMT antibacterial clay leachate (200 mg/mL DIW, equilibrated for 24 h). (a) E. coli initially show response to the acid solution (pH ~ 4.6); (b, c) between 1 and 6 h black Fe-oxide precipitates form at the polar ends of the bacteria, (d) after 24 h the black precipitates appear intracellularly and the bacteria are no longer viable (Williams et al., 2011). White voids are probably phosphate granules plucked out during microtoming (after Williams et al., 2011).

Figure 17

Fig. 15 STEM dark-field images of E.coli treated with OMT leachate 24 h, showing (a) Fe minerals (area 1) outside the cell not adhering to the cell wall, (b) whole cell showing white precipitates (black spots in Fig. 13), areas 1–4 were compared. (c) EELS spectra of the oxygen K edge (533 eV) and iron L-2/3 edge (709.5 eV), (d) Fe L-2/3 edge of the intracellular particles reveals the presence of Fe3+ at 709.5 eV reproduced, with permission, from Morrison et al. (2014)

Figure 18

Fig. 16 Synchrotron NEXAF analysis of the Fe distribution on E. coli reacted with OMT leachate over 12 h, indicating preferred Fe2+ (green) adsorption on the cell wall leaving Fe3+ (red) in extracellular solution. Percentages of Fe2+ and Fe3+ indicated were calculated using linear-regression fitting (reproduced with permission from Morrison et al. 2016)

Figure 19

Fig. 17 NanoSIMS results showing: (a) cross section A-A' across Amazon clay-treated E. coli; (b) Al/CN elevated on treated cell exterior; and (c) Fe/CN elevated in treated cell interior compared to controls (no clay)

Figure 20

Fig. 18 Gel electrophoresis PCR showing degradation of linear and circular DNA base pairs after treatment with OMT clay, compared with pyrite treatment. These results suggested intracellular protein damage (experiment by Dave Metge, USGS)

Figure 21

Fig. 19 Cartoon showing the development of biofilms from planktonic bacteria (reproduced, with permission, from Środoń & McCarty 2008)

Figure 22

Table 4 Bacterial species studied in biofilm form, including strain, source, and susceptibility profile

Figure 23

Fig. 20 Results of OMT clay suspension (200 mg/mL) and leachate treatments of established biofilms grown from common hospital pathogens from the Mayo Clinic Infectious Disease Research Lab (IDRL). Error bars are from triplicate independent experiments, with statistical significance p ≤ 0.05