See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342247330

Superabsorbent polymer characteristics, properties and applications

Article in Agrosystems Geosciences & Environment · July 2020

DOI: 10.1002/agg2.20074

CITATIONS READS

16 1,910

5 authors, including:

Aaron Lee M. Daigh Ryan Limb

University of Nebraska at Lincoln Stantec
103 PUBLICATIONS 773 CITATIONS 92 PUBLICATIONS 941 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dean D Steele
North Dakota State University
57 PUBLICATIONS 905 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Survey of North Dakota Pollinators View project

Amending Soils for Successful Remediation of Brine Spills View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ryan Limb on 20 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received: 6 May 2020 Accepted: 16 June 2020

DOI: 10.1002/agg2.20074

R E V I E W A N D I N T E R P R E TAT I O N

Superabsorbent polymer characteristics, properties,

and applications

Megan S. Ostrand1 Thomas M. DeSutter1 Aaron L. M. Daigh1

Ryan F. Limb2 Dean D. Steele3

1Department of Soil Science, North

Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108, Abstract
USA Superabsorbent polymers (SAPs) are materials that can absorb significant
2 Range Science Program, North Dakota
amounts of water relative to their mass. The nature and properties of SAPs make
State University, Fargo, ND 58101, USA
3
them a widely utilized material across many disciplines. A systematic review was
Department of Agricultural and
Biosystems Engineering, North Dakota conducted to examine the use of SAPs within agriculture and environmental sci-
State University, Fargo, ND 58108, USA ence. The method of application, rate, and the subsequent impact on soil prop-
erties were determined. Superabsorbent polymers can be used to improve and
Correspondence
Thomas M. DeSutter, North Dakota State prolong soil water holding capacity, decrease drought stress, and increase time
University, Dep. 7680, P.O. Box 6050, Fargo, between irrigation events. There are results indicating SAPs can reduce com-
ND 58108-6050, USA.
paction. Yield and plant growth characteristics were improved for all but one
Email: [email protected]
of the reviewed studies. While SAPs show potential as a tool, their economic fea-
Funding information sibility on large-scale and long-term projects should be evaluated.
Falkirk Mining Company - North Ameri-
can Coal Company; North Dakota Indus-
trial Commission - Lignite Research Coun-
cil, Grant/Award Number: (FY16-LXXX-
204); ND Agricultural Experiment Station

1 INTRODUCTION and polypeptide based); today, SAPs are commonly cre-

ated with acrylamide, acrylic acid, and its associated salts
Superabsorbent polymers are materials that can retain (Zohuriaan-Mehr et al, 2008). There are many SAP prod-
large volumes of water (Buchholz 1998; Ekebafe, Ogbei- ucts available on the market and, due to the variabil-
fun, & Okieimen, 2011) and maintain their shape (gran- ity in type and quality, prices range from US$10 to $40
ular, fiber, sheets, etc.) after swelling (Zohuriaan-Mehr et per kilogram. These materials have the ability to increase
al, 2008). Superabsorbent polymers can be classified as plant available water (PAW), reduce bulk density (BD) (Bai,
synthetic (chemical based), or natural (polysaccharide Zhang, Liu, Wu, & Song, 2010), and mitigate drought stress
(Hüttermann, Orikiriza, & Agaba, 2009) in addition to pro-
moting conditions conducive to plant growth, and con-
Abbreviations: BD, bulk density; BM, by mass; CEC, cation exchange
trolling the transport of plant nutrients and water (Eke-
capacity; EC, electrical conductivity; ETc , crop evapotranspiration; Ksat ,
saturated hydraulic conductivity; MBC, microbial biomass carbon; PAW,
bafe et al., 2011). Application rates are variable and depend
plant available water; SAPs, superabsorbent polymers; SMR, soil on intended use, polymer type, environmental conditions,
microbial respiration; SWHC, soil water holding capacity; WC, water and soil properties; of the papers reviewed field applica-
content; WUE, water use efficiency. tion rates ranged from 10 to 22 kg ha−1 . Given the nature
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
© 2020 The Authors. Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Crop Science Society of America and American Society of
Agronomy

Agrosyst Geosci Environ. 2020;3:e20074. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/agg2 1 of 14

https://doi.org/10.1002/agg2.20074
2 of 14 OSTRAND et al.

of SAPs, they can be used as a tool to strategically alter

soil properties. Understanding how soil properties can be Core Ideas
changed, and to what degree SAPs can change them, will
improve overall soil function and may lead to increased ∙ Superabsorbent polymers have the ability to
agricultural and reclamation success. enhance and improve soil properties.
Superabsorbent materials have a wide range of applica- ∙ Superabsorbent polymer type can dictate mag-
tions, and thus, are used across many disciplines, includ- nitude of effect on soil properties.
ing medicine, civil engineering, soil science, agricultural ∙ Rate of application, method and soil proper-
production, and hygienic products (Lejcus et al., 2018). ties can impact superabsorbent polymer perfor-
For example, one of the initial uses for SAPs was as an mance.
absorbent in baby diapers (Zohuriann-Mehr et al., 2008).
Today, specialized SAPs have been developed to respond
to specific molecules, allowing them to be used as biosen-
sors and a method of drug delivery (Zohuriann-Mehr et al., increase water retention and consequently improve plant
2008). Additional water held by SAPs can improve worka- growth (Dehkordi et al., 2017; Egrinya Eneji, Islam, An, &
bility of cement mixture and durability by limiting shrink- Amalu, 2013; Montesano, Parente, Santamaria, Sannino, &
age (He et al., 2019). Furthermore, SAPs have been used Serio, 2015). The nature of SAPs to swell has been shown
to dewater mine tailings (Roshani, Fall, & Kennedy, 2017) to reduce BD (Abrisham et al., 2018; Bai et al., 2010; Hou
and, as a remediation tool (Shi et al., 2016). The nature of et al., 2017) and increase permeability (Han et al., 2010).
SAPs and the engineering of new SAP technology makes However, the influence of SAP on soil evaporation has
them a tool that can be utilized across many fields. had mixed results (Al Jabri, Rahman, & Ibrahim, 2015; El-
Water-absorbing materials are classified by their absorp- Asmar, Jaafar, Bashour, Farran, & Saoud, 2017).
tion mechanism. Physical absorbers, such as SAPs, have
four mechanisms in which water is taken up: (a) by
changes of their crystal structure, (b) physical entrap- 1.1 Aims and scope
ment of water by capillary forces, (c) a combination
of mechanisms one and two, and (d) combination of The aims of this review are to summarize the impacts of
mechanisms one and two coupled with dissolution and SAPs on soils and plants. First, the impacts to soil physi-
expansion of chains limited by cross-linkages (Zohuriaan- cal properties, which is where most of the peer-reviewed
Mehr et al, 2008). Superabsorbent polymers are a network literature has focused, will be discussed, followed by sum-
of polymer chains where water is drawn into the poly- maries of SAP impacts to soil chemical and biological
mer through the process of osmosis (Elliott, 2013). Chains properties. Then, the impacts of SAPs on plant yields and
contain ions such as COO− and Na+ , which induce an growth characteristics are reviewed. Lastly, this review
osmotic gradient whereby water is then absorbed. Water provides information on performance considerations, the
is thereafter held within cross linkages by hydrogen bond- environmental impacts that may occur, and ideas on future
ing (Elliott, 2013). Absorption and expansion is limited research directions. The scope of this review was limited
by cross-linkages (chains) (Figure 1). Low density cross- to agricultural environments and does not include infor-
linked SAPs exhibit higher absorbent capacity and greater mation on polymer science, heavy metal mining, and de-
swelling, whereas high density cross-linked SAPs have watering of mine tailings.
lower absorbent capacity and swelling. The latter results
in greater "gel" strength.
Superabsorbent polymers have been used since the 1950s 2 SEARCH METHODS
to serve many functions within soil and agricultural sci-
ences (El Hady, Tayel, & Lofty, 1981). The water retention To examine the use and effect of SAP application
capacity of SAPs can increase PAW, which can lower plant within agriculture and the environment, a search of pub-
drought stress (Hüttermann et al., 2009; Yun, Kim, & Choi, lished literature using Web of Science was conducted on
2017). In addition, SAPs can act as a reservoir holding on 20 May 2019. Search terms are listed in Table 1. For an arti-
to nutrients from fertilizer preventing them from leach- cle to be included in the review, at least one of the top-
ing from the root zone (Liang, Liu, & Wu, 2007; Rudzin- ics from the refined categories was required. Additionally,
ski, Dave, & Vaishnav, 2002) and have been used as a seed articles focusing on polymer science, heavy metal mining,
coating to increase seedling survival during water-limiting and de-watering of mine tailings were excluded from the
conditions (De Barros, Pimentel, & Araujo, 2017). The pri- review. A total of 30 sources were thus identified and used
mary use of SAPs has been their incorporation into soil to for this review.
OSTRAND et al. 3 of 14

FIGURE 1 Superabsorbent polymer swelling. Adapted from Zohuriaan-Mehr et al. (2008)

TA B L E 1 Terminology used in literature search

a
Term Categories Topics
Superabsorbent polymer Environmental science; agronomy; agriculture Agriculture, yield, soil physical properties, bulk
multi- disciplinary, soil science; agricultural density, compaction, reclamation, water deficit,
engineering, multidisciplinary science salinity, nutrients, water retention
Super-absorbent polymer Environmental science; agronomy; agriculture Agriculture, yield, soil physical properties, bulk
multi- disciplinary, soil science; agricultural density, compaction, reclamation, water deficit,
engineering, multidisciplinary science salinity, nutrients, water retention
a
Term searched based on article titles, abstracts, and keywords.

For each paper the following information was collected: tically similar to the higher rate (Abrisham et al., 2018).
rate of application, method of mixing the soil and SAP, Furthermore, BD decreased from 1.72 and 1.71 g cm−3 to
and the depth at which the SAP was incorporated into the 1.63 and 1.56 g cm−3 , respectively, for two consecutive years
soil (Table 2), and the impact that SAP had on BD, water after 90 kg ha−1 application of 0.1% SAP/soil mixture at the
content (WC), evaporation, saturated hydraulic conduc- 0- to 30-cm depth of a sandy loam soil (Hou et al., 2017).
tivity (Ksat ), infiltration, pH, electrical conductivity (EC), However, other treatments of 30 and 60 kg ha−1 (0.001
cation exchange capacity (CEC), nutrient retention, micro- and 0.003% BM, respectively), did not reduce BD to this
bial activity, aggregate formation, yield or plant growth, degree (Hou et al., 2017). The same authors also found a
and location of the experiment (Table 3). These data were significant increase in porosity after 2 yr from 35.5 to 41.2%
organized by parameter and assessed if SAP increased at the 30-cm depth with 90 kg ha−1 application of 0.1%
or decreased the soil property relative to the control. An SAP/soil mixture. Similarly, BD was reduced from 1.05 to
increase in the property was denoted with a “+”, a decrease 1.00 g cm−3 with 0.5% BM application under two watering
with a “–”, and no change with a “0”. intervals, which correlated with porosity increasing from
68 to 78% (Prabha, Jyothi, John, & Sreekumar, 2014). The
above studies indicate that SAP application can reduce BD.
3 SUPERABSORBENT POLYMER However, application rates are highly variable among stud-
EFFECTS ON SOIL PROPERTIES ies and a majority performed in laboratory experiments.
Therefore, the feasibility of field-scale compaction reduc-
3.1 Bulk density tion is a potential research endeavor.

Of the five papers (Table 3. no. 1, 2, 13, 15, 20) found

for this review that examined BD, all of them reported a 3.2 Soil−water dynamics
decrease. For example, in a greenhouse study on a sandy
clay loam soil, 0.3% by mass (BM) SAP application signifi- Of the 30 papers found for this review, 26 of them studied
cantly decreased BD from 1.27 to 1.17 g cm−3 after undergo- the influence of SAP on soil−water properties and char-
ing four wetting−drying cycles (Bai et al., 2010). Bulk den- acteristics. Seven studies were conducted in the field and
sity of a sandy loam was shown to significantly decrease 19 in the laboratory. Given the number of studies, SAP
with 3 g dm−3 (0.2% BM) SAP application from 1.56 to application method and rate varied substantially. How-
1.45 g cm−3 , but the authors recommended the applica- ever, 12 studies mixed SAP on a mass basis with soil
tion rate of 1 g dm−3 (0.07% BM) because it was statis- at rates of 0.05–2%. Across field and laboratory studies,
TA B L E 2 List of literature articles included in this review with superabsorbent polymer (SAP) information
4 of 14

Reference SAP rate of application SAP method of mixing with soil SAP incorporation depth
cm
a
1. Abrisham et al., 2018 0, 1, and 3 g dm–3 of SAP: soil (0.07 and 0.2% BM) SAP hydrated then mixed with soil
b
2. Bai et al., 2010 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3% BM mixing 0–8
3. Banedjschafie and Durner, 2015 0.2, 0.6, 1.0% BM mixing
4. Bhardwaj et al., 2007 0, 0.5, 2.5, 5.0% BM mixing
5. Cao et al., 2017 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2% BM mixing 5
6. Chen et al., 2016 0, 0.1, 0.3, 0.6% BM mixing
7. Chen et al., 2018 NR
8. Dehkordi et al., 2017 0.05% BM NR
c
9. Dehkordi, 2018 (a) 180 kg ha–1 (0.008% BM) (b) 0.3 m3 of SAP: water (0.008%) (a) Cast mixture of soil and SAP (b) sprayed
10. El-Asmar et al., 2017 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4% BM mixing and banding 0–15
11. Egrinya Eneji et al., 2013 30 kg ha–1 (0.001% BM) applied to soil in lysimeter 0–20
–1
12. Grabinski et al., 2019 0, 10, 20, 30 kg ha (0.0004, 0.0008 0.001% BM) NR
13. Han et al., 2010 0.02, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2% BM mixing and compacting
14. Han et al., 2013 0.05% BM mixing
15. Hou et al., 2017 30, 60, 90 kg ha–1 of 0.1% BM SAP:soil mixing 10 cm 0–20
–1
16. Islam et al., 2011 60 kg ha (0.003% BM) in row with fertilizer
17. Al Jabri et al., 2015 1.2 kg m–3 (0.09% BM) mixing 0–10
18. Li et al., 2014 (a) 200 kg ha–1 (0.009% BM) (b) 0.4m3 SAP/water (0.009% BM) (a) Cast mixture of soil and SAP (b) sprayed
19. Montesano et al., 2015 0, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0% BM mixing
20. Prabha et al., 2014 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5% BM mixing
21. Fazeli Rostampour et al., 2013 0, 75, 150, 225 kg ha–1 (0.003, 0.007, 0.015 BM) by hand in rows 15–20
22. Salavati et al., 2018 80 kg ha–1 (0.004% BM) in furrow 10, 15, 20, 25
–1
23. Satriani et al., 2018 0, 5.0, 10.0 g plant (0.0004%, 0.0007% BM) mixing by plant
24. Volkmar and Chang, 1995 0.03, 0.12, 0.47, 1.87% BM mixing
25. Wilske et al., 2014 0.50% BM mixing
26. Yang et al., 2015 0.60% BM mixing 20–30
27. Yu et al., 2011 0.50% BM mixing
28. Yu et al., 2012 0.05% BM mixing
29. Yuguo et al., 2013 0.02% BM mixing
30. Zhao et al., 2019 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0% BM mixing 10–20
Note. NR, not reported.
a
g dm−3 percent by mass (BM), calculated using a standard bulk density of 1.33 g cm−3 . b Mixing was done using a variety of methods, such as by hand, or soil removal and mixture broadcast. c kg ha−1 converted to % BM
using an acre-furrow slice mass of 2 million pounds.
OSTRAND et al.
TA B L E 3 List of literature articles included in this review with changes in their respective parameters assessed resulting from use of superabsorbent polymers (SAPs)
Nutrient Microbial Aggregate Yield/plant
a
Reference BD WC Evaporation Ksat Infiltration pH EC CEC retention activity formation growth Type of study
b
OSTRAND et al.

1. Abrisham et al., – + – + field (Iran)

2018
2. Bai et al., 2010 – + +/– +/– lab
3. Banedjschafie + lab & field (Iran)
and Durner 2015
4. Bhardwaj et al., + +/– lab
2007
5. Cao et al., 2017 + + + field (China)
6. Chen et al., 2016 + – lab
7. Chen et al., 2018 + + lab
8. Dehkordi et al., + + lab
2017
9. Dehkordi, 2018 + 0 field (Iran)
10. El-Asmar et al., + +/0 + lab
2017
11. Egrinya Eneji + + lab
et al., 2013
12. Grabinski et al., + field
2019
13. Han et al., 2010 – + lab
14. Han et al., 2013 – lab
15. Hou et al., 2017 – + + field (China)
16. Islam et al., 2011 + + + field (China)
17. Al Jabri et al., + + lab
2015
18. Li et al., 2014 +/0 + + field (China)
19. Montesano + + lab
et al., 2015
20. Prabha et al., – + +/– + + + lab
2014
21. Fazeli + + field (Iran)
Rostampour
et al., 2013
(Continues)
5 of 14
 6 of 14

TA B L E 3 (Continued)
Nutrient Microbial Aggregate Yield/plant
a
Reference BD WC Evaporation Ksat Infiltration pH EC CEC retention activity formation growth Type of study
22. Salavati et al., + field (Iran)
2018
23. Satriani et al., + field (Italy)
2018
24. Volkmar and + 0 lab
Chang, 1995
25. Wilske et al., – lab
2014
26. Yang et al., 2015 +/– lab
27. Yu et al., 2011 + lab
28. Yu et al., 2012 – lab
29. Yuguo et al., + – lab
2013
30. Zhao et al., 2019 + – lab
a b
WC includes relative water content, plant-available water, water holding capacity, water use efficiency, gravimetric and volumetric water content. Symbols –, +, and 0 indicates a decrease, an increase, and no change,
respectively, in each parameter.
OSTRAND et al.
OSTRAND et al. 7 of 14

soil−water properties and characteristics had a positive Fifteen laboratory studies examining WHC, WC, and
response (i.e., improved water retention) to SAP applica- WUE, had SAP application rates which ranged from 0.001
tion for the majority of studies (n = 26). to 2% BM, all of which determined that SAP had an impact
The water retention and absorbency capacity of SAPs on soil water properties and characteristics when using
can increase PAW, as reported by three studies (Table 3. the mixing method (Table 3. no. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 17, 19,
no. 1, 3, 18). With no SAP application, PAW was 3.6% for 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30). Wilske et al. (2014), reported that
a sandy loam soil, and with 1 g dm−3 (0.07% BM) and 0.05% BM application, degraded by 0.45−0.76% after 6 mo,
3 g dm−3 (0.2% BM) PAW increased to 6.1 and 8.8%, respec- which though not significant, reduced SWHC for a range
tively (Abrisham et al., 2018). When applied to dune sand of loamy to sandy soils. Final saturated volumetric WC
at rates of 0.3, 0.6, and 1% SAP/soil, PAW increased from increased up to 0.19 cm3 cm−3 with 0.02% BM applica-
the control (5 g kg−1 ) by 560, 200, 270 g kg−1 , respec- tion to a sandy loam soil, with no difference between two
tively (Banedjschafie & Durner, 2015). With 200 kg ha−1 different SAPs. However, the polyacrylamide (a common
(0.009% BM) of SAP applied as wet and dry treatments to a SAP) had a longer effective retention time (Yuguo et al.,
loam soil, PAW increased for the first two stages of wheat 2013). After 30 d of drying, water retention of a constructed
(Triticum aestivum L.) growth from 12% to 14.4–15.1% and soil consisting of sandy clay loam, sand, and cow dung in
10% to 12.6–14.8%, but decreased for the grain-filling stage, a ratio of 1:1:1 with SAP application of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4,
likely due to the plants taking up water in early growth and 0.5% BM, increased significantly from 8% to 12, 15, 17,
stages (Li, He, Hughes, Liu, & Zheng, 2014). 18, and 19%, respectively (Prabha et al., 2014). Similarly,
The response of soil water holding capacity (SWHC), after only 7 d, SAP applied at rates of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0,
water content (WC), and water use per unit of evaporation and 2.0% BM to the 15-cm depth of silt loam soil, signifi-
(WUE) to SAP application was examined by 22 papers cantly increased WC from 8.5% to 14.1−16.3% (Cao et al.,
in this review. Of the 22 papers noted above, each of the 2017). When a sandy soil was amended with 0.5% BM SAP,
seven studies that took place in the field applied SAP WC at field capacity increased from 7 to 11%, but signif-
differently, with depths ranging from surface applied icant increase in WC at PWP was not seen until 2% BM
down to 20 cm below the soil surface (Table 3. no. 1, 5, application rate (Montesano et al., 2015). The results from
9, 15, 16, 18, 21). Dry application rates ranged from 75 the above studies indicate that SAP can increase WC and
(0.003% BM) to 225 kg ha−1 (0.015% BM) and wet applica- WHC, however, a specific rate cannot be recommended
tion rate was 18 g m−3 . The greatest application rate used because variation in soil texture impacts the quantity of
in the Fazeli Rostampour, Yarnia, Rahimzadeh Khoee, SAP that needs to be applied.
Seghatoleslami, and Moosavi (2013) sandy loam soil study, Superabsorbent polymers have the ability to increase
225 kg ha−1 (0.015% BM), increased relative water content soil water retention and, consequently, have the potential
(WC related to WC at full turgor) from 66 to 76% while to change evaporation dynamics. Four papers studied the
the lowest application of SAP, 75 kg ha−1 (0.003% BM), response of evaporation to SAP application (Table 3. no. 10,
only increased to 70%. The same authors found a signif- 17, 28, 30). With SAP application by mixing or banding,
icant increase in WUE from 2.1 to 2.6−2.9 kg dry mass crop evapotranspiration (ETc ) for corn (Zea mays L.) in a
produced per m3 of water for 75, 150, and 225 kg ha−1 clay soil did not change over 7 wk. However, in a sandy
(0.003, 0.007, and 0.015% BM) of SAP application (Fazeli clay loam, the ETc increased from 5.08 kg pot−1 with 0
Rostampour et al., 2013). With 200 kg ha−1 of wet and SAP to 5.22, 5.31, 5.46, and 5.58 kg pot−1 for application
dry SAP treatments applied to a loam soil surface, WC rates of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4% BM, respectively (El-Asmar
increased significantly for jointing, booting and grain- et al., 2017). However, banding of SAP resulted in higher
filling stages of wheat growth from 13% to 14.8−15.2%, 10% ETc for the 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4% application rates; which was
to 12−13.9% and 6% to 9.8−10.1% (Li et al., 2014). Similarly, attributed to banding acting more like a reservoir for water
at 180 kg ha−1 (0.008% BM) SAP wet and dry application that plants could better utilize (El-Asmar et al., 2017). In a
there was a significant increase in WHC from 11.6% to loamy sand, sandy loam, sandy clay loam, and clay loam
15.8−16.2% at the stem elongation growth stage (Dehkordi, soils amended with 0.5% BM, after 7 h of drying at 60 ◦ C,
2018). Similar increases were seen at the heading and retained 120−350 g kg−1 of water compared to soils with no
doughing stages (Dehkordi, 2018), SAP application of SAP application, which only retained 1−80 g kg−1 of water.
0.05, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3% increased WC. In a sandy soil The water losses were faster in larger (3−4 mm diam.)
undergoing wetting and drying cycles soil WC increased SAP particles compared to 0.2−1.0 mm diam. particles (Yu
by 6.2−32.8% relative to the control (Bai et al., 2010). Field et al., 2012). For a fine-textured saline soil, application of
study results showed some increased WC and WHC for 1.2 kg m−3 (0.09% BM) of SAP significantly deceased cumu-
SAP-amended soils, but not below a rate of 75 kg ha−1 lative evaporative water loss, compared to the control of
(0.003% BM). no SAP, from 69 to 52 mm after 35 d of drying at 26.6 ◦ C
8 of 14 OSTRAND et al.

(Al Jabri et al., 2015). A constructed soil that consisted of an increased saturation rate of 50 mm h−1 , Ksat was greater
40 cm of coarse soil overlaid with 10 cm of SAP/soil mix- than the 2 mm h−1 saturation rate for 0.5, 2.5, and 5.0% BM
ture with 10 cm of sand on surface was used to examine (Bhardwaj et al., 2007). Decrease in Ksat is attributed to
water loss (Zhao, Cao, Dou, Sheng, & Luo, 2019). The appli- SAPs filling pore space and restraining water movement
cation of 0.2, 0.5, and 1% BM significantly decreased evap- but its increase with time is attributed to shrinking and
orative water loss at the 2 and 18 cm depths after 10, 20 swelling of polymers undergoing wetting−drying cycles
and 30 d of evaporation at 23 ◦ C and the authors recom- (Han et al., 2013). While studies have examined SAP–soil
mended that the 0.2% rate would allow for normal plant mixtures influence on Ksat , the effects of freezing and
growth (Zhao et al., 2019). The water retention abilities thawing have not been investigated.
of SAP may also work well for irrigated soils. Yang et al. Preventing drought stress of plants is a driver for deter-
(2015) reports on a 110-d drip irrigation study conducted mining an irrigation schedule. Superabsorbent polymers’
on a constructed soil (sand [0−20 cm], loam [20−40 cm], ability to retain water could potentially change irrigation
silt [40−70 cm]) amended with 0.6% BM in the 20- to intervals. Abrisham et al. (2018) examined complete irri-
30-cm depth. They observed the SAP-amended layer had gation, defined as soil fully rehydrated six times at 30-d
12.5% volumetric WC, whereas the layers above and below intervals, and limited irrigation as soil partially rehydrated
only had 3.5 and 4.5% volumetric WC, which indicated three times at 60-d intervals. When water deficit conditions
that SAP influenced both downward water movement and were created by limited irrigation, an SAP application of
retention. 3 g dm−3 (0.2% BM) had similar percent seedling establish-
Superabsorbent polymer application can potentially ment as compared to complete irrigation (Abrisham et al.,
change pore size and pore network connectivity, which 2018). Plant characteristics such as shoot height, shoot
govern Ksat and infiltration. Three infiltration studies used fresh weight biomass and aboveground biomass under lim-
application rates ranging from 0.07 to 0.6% BM (Table 3. ited irrigation were all greater relative to the control (no
no. 1, 5, 26) and four Ksat laboratory studies used applica- SAP) when SAPs were applied (Abrisham et al., 2018).
tion rates ranging from 0.02 to 5.0% BM (Table 3. no. 4, When no SAP was applied, there was a significant dif-
13, 14, 29). Compared to the previous soil−water proper- ference between irrigation intervals, demonstrating SAP’s
ties and characteristics, infiltration and Ksat had the great- ability to reduce potential drought stress. After 30 d, a con-
est variability in response to SAP application; of the papers structed soil (1:1:1 sandy clay loam/sand/cow dung) with
reviewed there was both an increase and decrease found 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5% SAP BM had a soil WC of 17.0, 18.2,
for infiltration and Ksat response to SAP application Using and 19.0%, respectively, whereas the control only had a soil
a sandy loam soil with 3 g dm−3 (0.2% BM) SAP appli- WC of 8.0% (Prabha et al., 2014). Higher water retention
cation, infiltration decreased from 7 to 4.4 cm h−1 (Abr- would potentially allow for drought or water deficit stress
isham et al., 2018); for a silt loam soil, runoff was reduced to be mitigated.
by 24.6, 41.5, 46.5, 50.7% relative to the control (284 L of In summary, while SAPs can influence soil−water prop-
runoff) for SAP applications of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, and erties and characteristics, determining the right rate for
2.0% BM, respectively, applied at the 5-cm depth (Cao et al., the intended function will be influenced by soil texture,
2017). Yang et al. (2015) constructed a soil that consisted method of application, and water availability. The ability
of the following layers from top to bottom: 0−20 cm sand, of SAP to increase PAW is beneficial, and the results of
20−40 cm loam, and 40−70 cm silt. With SAP applied this review indicate that greater benefits may be seen in
at 0.6% BM incorporated at the 20- to 30-cm depth, the coarser-textured soils. The studies above used many appli-
40−70-cm layer had a greater horizontal percolation rate cation rates across various soil textures, such that, select-
than vertical percolation rate because of the SAP influence ing an ideal application rate is difficult. Since there are a
on this layer (Yang et al., 2015). With 0.02−0.2% BM SAP large number of SAPs on the market, understanding per-
application to loam and sandy loam soils, BD significantly formance differences will be integral for determining site-
decreased from 1.55 g cm−3 to less than 1.42 g cm−3 for all specific feasibility.
treatments (Han et al., 2010). This would have increased
soil porosity which may have induced large variations in
Ksat (Han et al., 2010). For example, when saturated at 3.3 Chemical properties
a 2 mm h−1 wetting rate, the Ksat of a sandy loam with
no SAP application was 71 mm h−1 , which decreased to Superabsorbent polymer application may influence soil
25.8−52.4, 37.3−54.0, and 34.2−65.9 mm h−1 for three poly- chemical properties, such as pH, EC, CEC, and nutrient
mers (Alcosorb, Stocksorb 500 medium and Stocksorb 500 retention. Understanding how SAPs may influence CEC,
Micro, respectively) applied at 0.5, 2.5, 5.0% BM (Bhard- pH, and EC is important because these properties can
waj, Shainberg, Goldstein, Warrington, & Levy, 2007). At affect plant growth. Seven papers (Table 3. no. 1, 2, 5, 7, 11,
OSTRAND et al. 9 of 14

16, 20) examined changes to soil chemical properties with change CEC. For example, SAP application of 3 g dm−3
five of those papers examining nutrient retention. In these (0.2% BM) to a sandy loam soil increased CEC from 6.2 to
studies, SAP application induced varying responses to soil 8.2 cmolc kg−1 but no change was observed at an applica-
chemical properties; all five papers that addressed nutri- tion rate of 1 g dm−3 (0.07% BM) (Abrisham et al., 2018).
ent retention reported a positive response to SAP applica- Similar to changes in soil pH and EC, changes in CEC are
tion. The application methods and rates for the three field associated with the composition of SAPs. Only one study
studies included hydrated SAP mixed with soil in plant- assessed CEC response to SAP application.
ing holes at 1−3 g dm−3 (0.07−0.2% BM), mixing with the Another consideration is the ability of SAPs to act as
5-cm depth at 0.25−2.0% BM and, in row application at nutrient reservoirs by CEC and by physically restricting
60 kg ha−1 (0.003% BM) with no planting depth reported. water transport of nutrients. Aboveground biomass of
The five laboratory and greenhouse studies all used a mix- drought-stressed forage oat (Avena sativa L.) decreased
ing method. Four of these studies applied SAP BM rang- under low and medium fertilizer levels but when SAP
ing from 0.05 to 2%, whereas the fifth study applied SAP at was applied at 60 kg ha−1 (0.003% BM) biomass sig-
60 kg ha−1 (0.003% BM). nificantly increased from 1.1 and 1.7 Mg ha−1 by 69.4
Soil pH may be affected by SAP application. In a con- and 30.7%, respectively (Islam et al., 2011). Reduction in
structed sandy clay loam soil with 0.5% powdered SAP growth indicated that less fertilizer could be used when
application undergoing two watering intervals over a 2-wk accompanied by SAP, however, this study took place in
study period, soil pH between watering intervals was not an arid region receiving only 40 cm of annual precipi-
different but pH was reduced for SAP treatments from 6.04 tation. Superabsorbent polymer application at 0.5% BM
to 5.7 and 5.8 and this decline was attributed to the carboxy- increased K, and Ca nutrient retention from 193.7 and
late ions present within the SAP (Prabha et al., 2014). Given 87.9 mg kg−1 to 227.7 and 113.0 mg kg−1 , respectively, rel-
that the SAP was in powder form, the higher surface area ative to the control (Prabha et al., 2014). One of the papers
may have compounded the effect on soil pH (Prabha et al., was a review paper that identified numerous studies that
2014). The type of SAP, and time that it has been in soil, improved nutrient retention when SAP was part of fertil-
may increase or decrease soil pH. In a field study (Bai et al., izer application (Chen et al., 2018). When SAP was applied
2010), sodium polyacrylate applied at a rate of 0.3% BM was at 30 kg ha−1 (0.001% BM) to a loamy sand, nitrate concen-
the only treatment that did not decrease soil pH. On the tration decreased from 135.5 to 61.5 mg L−1 (Egrinya Eneji
other hand, potassium polyacrylate applied at 0.05% BM et al., 2013). Under controlled rainfall simulation an appli-
initially increased soil pH, but after 12 d pH decreased rela- cation rate of 0.75% BM decreased N, P, and K runoff losses
tive to the control. The differences in soil pH are attributed by 14.9, 14.2, 13.1%, respectively, relative to the control (Cao
to the different chemical composition of SAPs applied, as et al., 2017). While the overall response of nutrient reten-
well as wetting and drying. Superabsorbent polymers can tion to SAP application was positive, the application rate
influence soil pH and changes will be a function of the type and water entering the system was a factor.
of SAP, length of time after application, and the buffering In summary, while SAPs can be beneficial to nutrient
capacity of the soil. retention, their impact on soil pH and EC is highly variable.
Application of SAP can change EC, as reported by The above studies had different application rates, as well
two papers in this review, but the responses were varied. as, types of SAP. The above results highlight that changes
For example, in a constructed sandy clay loam soil the in soil chemical properties will be dependent on applica-
control soil had an initial EC of 1.5 dS m−1 , after 13 wk tion rate, soil water, and SAP composition.
the EC of the control increased to 2.95 dS m−1 and 0.5%
SAP-treated soil increased EC to 5.3 dS m−1 as determined
by suspension (Prabha et al., 2014). The increase in EC was 3.4 Biological properties
associated with the acids and ions present in SAP. In a soil
with changing water states, SAP application increased EC While the primary uses of SAPs are to conserve water
initially, but after 12 and 21 d after application EC signifi- and promote plant growth, three studies from this review
cantly decreased 51.7−65.5%, and 42.5−51.3%, respectively, examined microbial activity and one study found an
relative to the control (0.3 dS m−1 ) for two polymer types increase in aggregate formation which is discussed later
(Bai et al., 2010). The above studies show that SAP effects (Table 3. no. 9, 18, 20). Two of the studies were performed
EC, however, the responses were variable which may be a in the field. One field study used dry application rates of
result of SAP composition. 180 kg ha−1 (0.008% BM) and 200 kg ha−1 (0.009% BM),
Understanding the ability of SAPs to change CEC is whereas the other field study used wet application of 5.4 g
important as it may influence soil fertility and plant per 0.3 m3 (0.008% BM) or 7.2 g per 0.4 m3 (0.009% BM)
growth. Just as SAPs can alter soil pH and EC, they can SAP/water mixture applied to soil surface. The laboratory
10 of 14 OSTRAND et al.

study used 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5% BM. Even though dif- Only three studies in this review examined SAP influence
ferent SAPs, application rates, and methods were deployed, on soil biological properties, making determinations even
there were only two negative responses to any of the mea- more uncertain, due to small sample size.
sured soil biological properties.
Application of SAPs can increase soil microbial abun-
dance and activity. For example, when 5 g of soil was sam- 3.5 Yield and plant
pled in the booting and filling growth stages of wheat, bac- growth characteristics
terial abundance significantly increased with dry applica-
tion of 200 kg ha−1 (0.009% BM) and wet application of One of the primary reasons for applying SAPs is to improve
7.2 g of SAP with 0.4 m3 of water to a loam soil (Li et al., plant yields or biomass production. Of the 12 studies
2014). In the jointing stage, bacterial abundance increased that focused on this, only one study reported a negative
for one polymer but decreased for another under bulk dry response (Table 3. no. 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22,
application (Li et al., 2014). Similarly, with 0.5% BM to a 23, 24). This negative response was attributed to higher
constructed soil, bacteria and fungi counts increased 16 concentration of acrylic acid and Na+ within the SAP,
and 18%, respectively, when compared to soil with no SAP which inhibited maize growth and altered root morphol-
(Prabha et al., 2014). ogy with increasing application rate (Chen, Mao, Lu, Liao,
While the abundance of soil microbes changes with SAP & He, 2016). Of plant response studies, only 50% were per-
application, the microbial activity characterized by micro- formed in the field. Application methods included hydrat-
bial biomass carbon (MBC) and soil microbial respiration ing SAP and subsequent mixing with soil, dry mixing
(SMR) should also be examined. When SAP was applied with soil, hand application in row, and a surface-sprayed
dry at 180 kg ha−1 (0.008% BM) and applied wet at 5.2 g SAP/water mixture. Field application rates varied from
SAP with 0.3 m3 of water, there was no significant change 30 kg ha−1 (0.001% BM) to 225 kg ha−1 (0.015% BM)
in MBC. However, there was a decrease in SMR when sam- and laboratory/greenhouse application rates from 0.05 to
pled during the plants’ doughing stage (Dehkordi et al., 2% BM. Even with variation in application method and
2018). Increased MBC and SMR in other growth stages rate there was an overall positive response of plants to SAP
were attributed to the microbes being able to utilize SAP as application.
a C source (Li et al., 2014). Superabsorbent polymer appli- Superabsorbent polymer application can improve plant
cation can increase microbial activity and abundance, but growth. For example, cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) total
the effect is largely dependent on growth stage of the plant. fresh biomass and fruit fresh biomass increased by 840 and
Superabsorbent polymers alter the soil environment by 494 g per plant, respectively, with 2 g L−1 of SAP in a sandy
their physical presence and increased water content, which soil (Montesano et al., 2015). Another study with various
potentially impacts biological processes such as aggre- potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars found increased
gate formation. Only one paper measured SAP impacts on tuber yield when planted at 10-, 15-, 20-, and 25-cm depth
aggregate formation (Table 3. no. 18). Both 200 kg ha−1 with SAP applied in furrow at 80 kg ha−1 (0.004% BM)
dry (0.009% BM) application and wet application of 7.2 g to a clay loam soil and the highest yield was found at the
SAP with 0.4 m3 of water sprayed for two SAPs increased 25-cm sowing depth (Salavati, Valadabadi, Parvizi,
macro aggregates (>0.25 mm) from 54.0% to 71.6−73.5% Sayfzadeh, & Hadidi Masouleh, 2018). A similar response
when sampled at the plants’ booting stage; similarly, macro was found in a sandy loam soil for 0.1% BM SAP/soil
aggregates increased from 54.4% to 70.3−71.0% when sam- mixture when applied at 60 and 90 kg ha−1 , which
pled at the plant’s filling stage (Li et al., 2014). This increase yielded potato 38.2 and 50.5% higher than the control
in macro aggregates is attributed to SAPs adsorbed to (24.2 Mg ha−1 ) when SAP was applied at 20 cm (Hou
soil particles preventing dispersion. Given there was no et al., 2017). While SAP application can improve plant
change in aggregate formation in the first growth stage, growth, the depth in which it is applied may impact
SAPs may not have had adequate time to bind to soil (Li its effectiveness.
et al., 2014). Follow-up studies should be conducted to Under water stress conditions SAPs have a greater influ-
learn more about how SAPs affect aggregate formation ence on plant productivity (Fazeli Rostampour et al., 2013;
since soil texture, application rate, and time after applica- Egrinya Eneji et al., 2013) compared with nonstressed con-
tion are contributing factors. ditions. Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] dry mat-
While SAPs can improve microbial abundance and ter only increased when there was a water deficit in sandy
activity, and aggregate formation, selecting the appropriate loam soil with SAP application rate of 75, 150 or 225 kg ha−1
rate and application method needs further research. The (0.003, 0.007, 0.015% BM) (Fazeli Rostampour et al., 2013).
above studies had variable application rates, methods, and At the application rate of 30 kg ha−1 (0.001% BM) to a
SAPs, which makes determining a standard rate difficult. sandy loam soil, corn biomass increased 99% under deficit
OSTRAND et al. 11 of 14

irrigation and 39% under moderate irrigation, and only 11% application. Since SAPs will be incorporated with soil, it is
under full irrigation; overall, plants under water deficit important to consider their absorbency under load. With
showed reduced stress signals with SAP application com- increasing BD and application depth, SAPs absorption
pared with no SAP (Eneji et al., 2018). Over a 3-yr study, time increased and overall absorbency decreased (Lejcus
SAP application at 30 kg ha−1 (0.001% BM) increased et al., 2018) and in addition, confinement by the soil matrix
wheat grain yield relative to the control and further yield restricted SAP function (Yu et al., 2011). Salt type and con-
increase was found in years of water deficit (Grabinski centration within the soil system can further diminish SAP
et al., 2019). Similarly, yield of dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris absorbency (Al Jabri et al., 2015). These changes in capac-
L.) grown in a silty clay loam with 5 g plant−1 (0.0004% BM) ity should be taken into consideration when determining
SAP application at a water deficit of 70% ETc was similar to SAP application method, rate of application, and depth of
no polymer application at 100% ETc (Satriani, Catalano, & placement.
Scalcione, 2018). With salt (NaCl), drought, and combined
(NaCl + drought) stress introduced, eucalyptus (Eucalyp-
tus globulus Labill.) dry weight increased from 39.6, 40.4, 3.7 Environmental impacts
and 39.1 g to 45.6, 44.1, and 47.7 g, respectively, and the
increase in dry weight was attributed to SAPs mitigation Some common concerns about the use and application
of salt and drought conditions (Dehkordi et al., 2017). of SAPs include safety, toxicity, and environmental fate.
In low fertility conditions, SAPs have shown to improve Superabsorbent polymers are “irreversible,” meaning that
plant metrics. For example, using an SAP application rate they cannot be returned to starting materials or converted
of 60 kg ha−1 (0.003%) BM in standard, medium, and low to toxic metabolites (Zohuriaan-Mehr et al, 2008). The
fertility conditions, relative to no SAP applied, forage oat majority of the material safety data sheets for SAPs clas-
tillers increased by 5.5, 11.6, 18.6%; aboveground biomass sify these compounds as being pH neutral, inert, and
increased by 30.4, 30.7, 69.46%; and grain yield increased overall “Safe and Non-toxic,” and are currently not reg-
by 30.7, 29.7 and 70.8%, respectively (Islam et al., 2011). ulated as hazardous materials. A few examples include:
Plant growth can be improved with SAP application, (a) Zap Zorb Crosslinked Sodium polyacrylate (9003-04-7,
specifically under stress or deficit conditions, which may Zappa Tec LLC) is only an irritant if exposed over the rec-
make SAPs attractive for these conditions. ommended amount (8 h exposure limit of 0.05 mg m−3 ),
Application of SAP at manufacturer recommended rate and (b) composted polyacrylate is labeled as nontoxic to
does not always perform the desired function. Two SAPs aquatic or terrestrial organisms at predicted exposure lev-
applied at the recommended rate were not effective at els from current product specific application rates.
improving yields of canola (Brassica napus L.) and bar- When SAPs are degraded in the soil, the products are
ley (Hordeum vulgare L.) but four times this rate improved CO2 , water, ammonia, and other constituents such as Na
yield (Volkmar & Chang, 1995). In another field-scale study depending on polymer composition (De Barros et al., 2017).
1 g dm−3 (0.07% BM) and 3 g dm−3 (0.2% BM) were found While the products of degradation are not toxic, there is
to improve seedling establishment; however, these applica- limited understanding in the breakdown mechanisms of
tion rates were not significantly different (Abrisham et al., these compounds and the cumulative effects, if any, that
2018). Application of SAPs has proven to improve plant may occur within the soil ecosystem. The general half-
growth; however, the technical aspects, such as application life of SAPs in soil is 5−7 yr (Ekebafe et al., 2011), and their
rate and method, need to be refined. longevity will be influenced by soil pH (Sadd, Lopes, &
In summary, while SAPs can be beneficial to plant Dos Santos, 2009). The stable C backbone, low solubility,
growth, selecting the proper rate for the intended function and high mass due to cross-linking make SAPs resistant
is important, and the recommended application rate to soil to breakdown by bacteria (Stahl, Cameron, Haselbach, &
as stated by Volkmar and Chang (1995), 0.03% BM, has not Aust, 2000). Biodegradation can occur as mineralization
been fully vetted. The above studies used many rates of and solubilization, which can be aided by white rot fungi
application across many soil textures, which confounds the (Stahl et al., 2000). If the application of SAPs in soil for
ability to establish a recommended rate. the above-mentioned uses increases, its degradation and
longevity in soil may need further exploration.
Given that SAPs do not degrade readily and persist for
3.6 Superabsorbent polymer several years, it is essential to understand their mobility. If
performance considerations SAPs become mobile their effectiveness may diminish and
they could potentially enter the groundwater system. Even
Superabsorbent polymer performance is going to be depen- though these materials are non-toxic, there is potential
dent on field conditions, application depth, and rate of concern if these materials enter the ground water. When
12 of 14 OSTRAND et al.

30 pore volumes of water were passed through sand test Aaron L. M. Daigh https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5661-
columns, 99.7% of polyacrylate absorbent and 92% of lin- 4800
ear poly acrylic acid were retained within the column (Sack
et al., 1998). Mobility of SAPs may be dictated by soil tex- REFERENCES
ture and organic matter. Soils with higher organic matter Abrisham, E. S., Jafari, M., Tavili, A., Rabii, A., Zare Chahoki, M.
and clay contents will likely limit SAP mobility. Long-term A., Zare, S., . . . Tahmoures, M. (2018). Effects of a superabsorbent
studies of SAP mobility have not been conducted. polymer on soil properties and plant growth for use in land recla-
mation. Arid Land Research and Management, 3, 407–420. https:
//doi.org/10.1080/15324982.2018.1506526
Al Jabri, S. A., Rahman, H. A. A., & Ibrahim, A. M. (2015). Agricul-
3.8 Future research tural polymers revisited: Salinity interactions and soil-water con-
servation. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 46,
Superabsorbent polymer performance may change over 2661–2674. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2015.1089267
time as a result of field conditions. These changes have Bai, W., Zhang, H., Liu, B., Wu, Y., & Song, J. Q. (2010). Effects of
been studied within the laboratory and on relatively short super-absorbent polymers on the physical and chemical properties
time scales. When thinking about applying these materi- of soil following different wetting and drying cycles. Soil Use and
als at the field scale, the longevity of performance over the Management, 26, 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2010.
00271.x
course of multiple years needs to be evaluated. The degra-
Banedjschafie, S., & Durner, W. (2015). Water retention properties of a
dation of the SAPs under various field conditions should sandy soil with superabsorbent polymers as affected by aging and
be studied. Depth, rate, and method of application should water quality. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 178, 798–
all be evaluated at the field scale to determine benefit/cost 806. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201500128
ratios for the different types of SAPs. Overall, SAPs need Bhardwaj, A. K., Shainberg, I., Goldstein, D., Warrington, D. N., &
to be examined in the field over longer periods, as well as Levy, G. J. (2007). Water retention and hydraulic conductivity of
how soil mechanical properties are changed. cross-linked polyacrylamides in sandy soils. Soil Science Society
of America Journal, 71, 406–412. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2006.
0138
Buchholz, F. L., & Graham, A. T. (1998). Modern superabsorbent poly-
4 CONCLUSIONS mer technology. New York: Wiley-VCH.
Cao, Y., Wang, B., Guo, H., Xiao, H. & Wei, T. (2017). The effect of
Superabsorbent polymers have primarily been used to superabsorbent polymers on soil and water conservation on the
improve and prolong soil water holding capacity and terraces of the loess plateau. Ecological Engineering, 102, 270–279.
increase time between irrigation events. There has been https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.02.043
positive results for SAPs’ ability to reduce compaction. Chen, J., Lü, S., Zhang, Z., Zhao, X., Li, X., Ning, P., & Liu, M. (2018).
Environmentally friendly fertilizers: A review of materials used
However, the majority of SAP studies were performed in
and their effects on the environment. The Science of the Total Envi-
the laboratory or on small field scales and results may not ronment, 613–614, 829–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.
translate to larger scale projects or may not be econom- 09.186
ically feasible at such a scale. Large-scale and long-term Chen, X., Mao, X., Lu, Q., Liao, Z., & He, Z. (2016). Characteristics
projects are recommended to evaluate the function, per- and mechanisms of acrylate polymer damage to maize seedlings.
formance, and overall benefits to crop yields and plant Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 129, 228–234. https://doi.
productivities. org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2016.03.018
De Barros, A. F., Pimentel, L. D., & Araujo, E. F. (2017). Super-
absorbent polymer application in seeds and planting furrow:
AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S
It will be a new opportunity for rainfed agriculture. Sem-
The authors extend their gratitude to the ND Agricul- ina:CIencias Agrarias, 38, 1703–1714. https://doi.org/10.5433/1679-
tural Experiment Station and the North Dakota Industrial 0359.2017v38n4p1703
Commission–Lignite Research Council (FY16-LXXX-204) Dehkordi, K. (2017). Effect of superabsorbent polymer on salt and
in cooperation with the Falkirk Mining Company–North drought resistance of Eucalyptus globulus. Applied Ecology and
American Coal Company for their monetary support. Environmental Research, 15, 1791–1802. https://doi.org/10.15666/
aeer/1504_17911802
Dehkordi, K. (2018). Evaluation of two types of superabsorbent poly-
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
mer on soil water and some soil microbial properties. Paddy Water
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Environ, 16, 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-017-0623-x
Egrinya Eneji, A., Islam, R., An, P., & Amalu, U. C. (2013). Nitrate
ORCID retention and physiological adjustment of maize to soil amend-
Thomas M. DeSutter https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0582- ment with superabsorbent polymers. Journal of Cleaner Produc-
5226 tion, 52, 474–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.027
OSTRAND et al. 13 of 14

Ekebafe, L. O., Ogbeifun, D. E., & Okieimen, F. E. (2011). Polymer Montesano, F. F., Parente, A., Santamaria, P., Sannino, A., & Serio,
applications in agriculture. Biokemistri, 232, 81–89. https://doi. F. (2015). Biodegradable superabsorbent hydrogel increases water
org/10.4314/biokem.v23i2 retention properties of growing media and plant growth. Agricul-
El-Asmar, J., Jaafar, H., Bashour, I., Farran, M. T., & Saoud, I. P. ture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 4, 451–458. https://doi.org/
(2017). Hydrogel banding improves plant growth, survival, and 10.1016/j.aaspro.2015.03.052
water use efficiency in two calcareous soils. Clean Soil, Air, Water, Prabha, P. C., Jyothi, A. N., John, K. S., & Sreekumar, J. (2014).
45, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201700251 Cassava starch based superabsorbent polymer as soil conditioner:
El Hady, O. A., Tayel, M. Y., & Lofty, A. A. (1981). Super gel as a soil Impact on soil physico-chemical and biological properties and
conditioner II – Its effects on plant growth, enzyme activity, water plant growth. Clean Soil, Air, Water, 42, 1610–1617. https://doi.org/
use efficiency and nutrient uptake. Acta Horticulture, 12, 257–265. 10.1002/clen.201300143
https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1981.119.22 Roshani, A., Fall, M., & Kennedy, K. (2017). Impact of drying on geo-
Elliott, M. (2013). Superabsorbent polymers. Aktiengesellschaft, environmental properties of mature fine tailings pre-dewatered
Germany: BASF. Retrieved from http://chimianet.zefat.ac.il/ with superabsorbent polymer. International Journal of Environ-
download/Super-absorbant_polymers.pdf mental Science and Technology, 14, 453–462. https://doi.org/10.
Fazeli Rostampour, M., Yarnia, M., Rahimzadeh Khoee, F., Segha- 1007/s13762-016-1162-5
toleslami, M. J., & Moosavi, G. R. (2013). Physiological response of Rudzinski, W. E., Dave, A. M., and Vaishnav, U. H. (2002). Hydrogels
forage sorghum to polymer under water deficit conditions. Agron- as controlled release devices in agriculture. Designed Monomers
omy Journal, 105, 951–959. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2012.0071 and Polymers, 5, 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1163/156855502760151580
Grabiński, J., & Wyzińska, M. (2019). The effect of superabsorbent Saad, J. C. C., Lopes, J. L. W., & Dos Santos, T. A. (2009).
polymer application on yielding of winter wheat (Triticum aes- Manejo hídrico em viveiro e uso de hidrogel na sobrevivên-
tivum L.). Agricultural Sciences (Crop Sciences, Animal Sciences), cia pós-plantio de Eucalyptus urograndis em dois solos difer-
2, 55–61. https://doi.org/10.22616/rrd.24.2018.051 entes. Engenharia Agrícola, 29(3), 404–411. https://doi.org/10.
Han, Y., Yu, X., Yang, P., Li, B., Xu, L., & Wang, C. (2013). Dynamic 1590/S0100-69162009000300007
study on water diffusivity of soil with super-absorbent polymer Sack, T. M., Wilner, J., Cutie, S. S., Blanchette, A. R., & Johnson,
application. Environmental Earth Sciences, 69, 289–296. https:// B. N. (1998). Monitoring soil column mobility of cross-linked and
doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-1956-9 soluble polyacrylates using gel permeation chromatography. Envi-
Han, Y. G., Yang, P. L., Luo, Y. P., Ren, S. M., Zhang, L. X., & ronmental Science & Technology, 32, 2474–2479. https://doi.org/10.
Xu, L. (2010). Porosity change model for watered superabsorbent 1021/es971089k
polymer-treated soil. Environmental Earth Sciences, 61, 1197–1205. Salavati, S., Valadabadi, S. A., Parvizi, K. H., Sayfzadeh, S., & Hadidi
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-009-0443-4 Masouleh, E. (2018). The effect of super-absorbent polymer and
He, Z., Shen, A., Guo, Y., Lyu, Z., Li, D., Qin, X., . . . Wang, Z. (2019). sowing depth on growth and yield indices of potato (Solanum
Cement-based materials modified with superabsorbent polymers: tuberosum L.) in Hamedan Province, Iran. Applied Ecology and
A review. Construction and Building Materials, 225, 569–590. https: Environmental Research, 16, 7063–7078. https://doi.org/10.15666/
//doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.139 aeer/1605_70637078
Hou, X., Li, R., He, W., Dai, X., Ma, K., & Liang, Y. (2017). Superab- Satriani, A., Catalano, M., & Scalcione, E. (2018). The role of super-
sorbent polymers influence soil physical properties and increase absorbent hydrogel in bean crop cultivation under deficit irriga-
potato tuber yield in a dry-farming region. Journal of Soils and Sed- tion conditions: A case-study in Southern Italy. Agricultural Water
iments, 18, 816–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-017-1818-x Management, 195, 114–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.10.
Hüttermann, A., Orikiriza, L. J. B., and Agaba, H. (2009)Application 008
of superabsorbent polymers for improving the ecological chem- Shi, Y., Huang, Z., Liu, X., Imran, S., Peng, L., Dai, R., & Deng, Y.
istry of degraded or polluted lands. Clean Soil, Air, Water, 37(7), (2016). Environmental materials for remediation of soils contam-
517–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.200900048 inated with lead and cadmium using maize (Zea mays L.) growth
Islam, M. R., Ren, C., Zeng, Z., Jia, P., Eneji, E., & Hu, Y. (2011). Fertil- as a bioindicator. Environmental Science and Pollution Research,
izer use efficiency of drought-stressed oat (Avena sativa L.) follow- 23, 6168–6178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5778-7
ing soil amendment with a water-saving superabsorbent polymer. Stahl, J. D., Cameron, M. D., Haselbach, J., & Aust, S. D. (2000).
Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B–Soil & Plant Science, 61, Biodegradation of superabsorbent polymers in soil. Environmental
721–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2011.553197 Science and Pollution Research, 7, 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1065/
Lejcus, K., Spitalniak, M., and Dabrowska, J. (2018). Swelling espr199912.014
behavior of superabsorbent polymers for soil amendment Volkmar, K. M., & Chang, C. (1995). Influence of hydrophilic gel poly-
under different loads. Polymers, 10,1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ mers on water relations and growth and yield of barley and canola.
polym10030271 Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 75, 605–611. https://doi.org/10.
Li, X., He, J. Z., Hughes, J. M., Liu, Y. R., & Zheng, Y. M. (2014). Effects 4141/cjps95-105
of super-absorbent polymers on a soil-wheat (Triticum aestivum Wilske, B., Bai, M., Lindenstruth, B., Bach, M., Rezaie, Z., Frede, H.-
L.) system in the field. Applied Soil Ecology, 73, 58–63. https://doi. G., & Breuer, L. (2014). Biodegradability of a polyacrylate super-
org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.08.005 absorbent in agricultural soil. Environmental Science and Pollu-
Liang, R., Liu, M., & Wu, L. (2007). Controlled release NPK com- tion Research, 21, 9453–9460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-
pound fertilizer with the function of water retention. Reactive 2103-1
and Functional Polymers, 67, 769–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Yang, L., Han, Y., Yang, P., Wang, C., Yang, S., Kuang, S., . . . Xiao,
reactfunctpolym.2006.12.007 C. (2015). Effects of superabsorbent polymers on infiltration and
14 of 14 OSTRAND et al.

evaporation of soil moisture under point source drip irrigation. linking densities. Polymers, 9, 7–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym
Irrigation and Drainage, 64, 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird. 9110600
1883 Zhao, W., Cao, T., Dou, P., Sheng, J., & Luo, M. (2019). Effect of var-
Yu, J., Shainberg, I., Yan, Y. L., Shi, J. G., Levy, G. J., & Mamedov, ious concentrations of superabsorbent polymers on soil particle-
A. I. (2011). Superabsorbents and semiarid soil properties affect- size distribution and evaporation with sand mulching. Scientific
ing water absorption. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 75(6), Reports, 9, 3511. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39412-x
2305–2313. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2010.0397 Zohuriaan-Mehr, M. J., & Kabiri, K. (2008). Superabsorbent polymer
Yu, J., Shi, J. G., Dang, P. F., Mamedov, A. I., Shainberg, I., & Levy, materials: A review. Iranian Polymer Journal, 17, 451–477.
G. J. (2012). Soil and polymer properties affecting water reten-
tion by superabsorbent polymers under drying conditions. Soil Sci-
ence Society of America Journal, 76(5), 1758–1767. https://doi.org/
10.2136/sssaj2011.0387 How to cite this article: Ostrand MS, DeSutter
Yuguo, H., Yu, X., Yang, P., Li, B., Xu, L., & Wang, C. (2013). Dynamic TM, Daigh ALM, Limb RF, Steele DD.
study on water diffusivity of soil with super-absorbent polymer Superabsorbent polymer characteristics, properties
application. Environmental Earth Sciences, 69, 289–296. https://
and applications. Agrosyst Geosci Environ.
doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-1956-9
Yun, K. K., Kim, K. K., & Choi, W. (2017). Hygral behavior of
2020;3:e20074. https://doi.org/10.1002/agg2.20074
superabsorbent polymers with various particle sizes and cross-

View publication stats