© 2026 The authors. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
OPEN ACCESS
Bioinoculants derived from endophytic microbes can improve sustainable agriculture; nevertheless, their use is constrained by limited shelf life and inconsistent viability during storage. This research formulates and assesses a natural clinoptilolite–zeolite carrier to maintain the viability of endophytic bacteria isolated from healthy tea (Camellia sinensis) roots obtained at the Tea and Quinine Research Center in Gambung, West Java, Indonesia. The clinoptilolite was sieved to 45–80 mesh, thermally conditioned at either 100 ℃ or 200 ℃, adjusted to approximately 4% moisture, and inoculated at three microbial loadings (12.5%, 25%, and 50% w/w). The formulations were maintained at 0 ℃ and evaluated by plate counts (plate count agar (PCA)) at 0, 30, 90, and 150 days. On day 0, the initial viable counts ranged from 3.35 × 10⁹ to 6.70 × 10⁹ CFU g⁻¹, depending on the loading conditions. The highest initial population (6.70 × 10⁹ CFU g⁻¹) was achieved at 50% loading, whereas the lowest (3.35 × 10⁹ CFU g⁻¹) occurred at 12.5% loading. The results demonstrated that all zeolite-based formulations maintained viable counts of approximately 10⁹ CFU g⁻¹ throughout the 150-day storage period. This was significantly higher than the control group without zeolite, which exhibited a final count of only 5.0 × 10⁵ CFU g⁻¹ at day 150 (p < 0.05). Relative to their initial populations (CFU₀), the zeolite formulations retained 33%–60% of viable cells by the end of the storage period, with higher retention observed at lower initial loadings. The findings indicate that specific carrier design factors (particle size, thermal treatment, and moisture content) can enhance viability stability and yield more resilient bioinoculant formulations for tea agroecosystems. Statistical analysis confirmed that microbial loading had a significant effect on cell survival (p < 0.01), with lower initial loadings resulting in higher percentage retention.
endophytic bacteria, zeolite carrier, clinoptilolite, microbial preservation, cold storage, bioinoculant, tea agroecosystem
A prevalent issue in commercial and field applications is the swift deterioration of viable cells during storage and transportation, which impacts product consistency and reliability [1]. Because they provide chemical fertilizer substitutes and promote soil health, nutrient cycling, and plant resilience, biofertilizers and microbial inoculants are increasingly recognized as essential tools for sustainable agriculture. However, delivering the ideal quantity of living microbial cells at the time of application is crucial to its efficacy. Along with flaws in quality assurance and regulatory systems, these major issues are also affected by developments in formulation, preservation, environmental adaptability, and application techniques. To achieve consistent field performance and broader adoption in sustainable farming systems, these problems must be addressed [2]. Carrier-based formulations are essential in the design of inoculants. Conventional organic carriers, such as peat or compost, can enhance microbial viability but face challenges due to variability, moisture instability, and quality assurance [3]. A recent study underscores the significance of carriers possessing well-defined physical and chemical characteristics. In this regard, natural zeolites, particularly clinoptilolite, have emerged as promising inert, porous substrates. Their aluminosilicate structure and ion-exchange capability establish microhabitats that control moisture and ionic conditions [4]. Clinoptilolite has been thoroughly researched for agricultural applications, particularly as a stabilizing matrix for microbial inoculants. Endophytic bacteria derived from tea (Camellia sinensis) roots are increasingly recognized for their potential to improve plant health and enhance stress resilience [5]. Although these tea plant endophytic bacteria have great potential, the lack of a stable carrier formulation with clear process parameters suitable for their characteristics limits their commercialization and large-scale application [6]. Moreover, current research on zeolite-based carriers frequently omits specific processing characteristics (e.g., mesh size, heat conditioning, and moisture content), complicating comparisons of results [7]. From a formulation design standpoint, regulating these factors is crucial for consistent results. The recommended mesh size and moisture content were selected to optimize microbiological protection while ensuring practical handling: particles are tiny enough to create protective niches, yet coarse enough to allow flowability, and low moisture to reduce microbial activity during storage. This study seeks to (i) create a clinoptilolite carrier (45–80 mesh; heat-treated at 100 ℃ and 200 ℃; moisture adjusted to approximately 4% w/w) for an endophytic bacterial inoculant derived from tea roots in Gambung, West Java; and (ii) assess viability retention during cold storage at 0 ℃ for up to 150 days across various microbial loadings (12.5%, 25%, and 50% w/w) using a factorial design and total plate counts [8]. This study delineates design parameters and information on plant samples, carrier preparation, and enumeration methodologies, thereby enabling reproducible comparisons and facilitating the translation of endophyte-based inoculants into practical applications [9].
2.1 Study area, host plant, and root sampling
Endophytic microbes were isolated from healthy tea plants (Camellia sinensis) cultivated at the Tea and Quinine Research Center in Gambung, West Java, Indonesia. Plants exhibiting no signs of illness were selected. Fine roots were excavated because of their critical roles in endophyte recruitment and plant growth [10]. Roots were collected using sterilized instruments, placed in sterile sampling bags, transported in a chilled container, and processed promptly to minimize alteration of the microbial community [11].
2.2 Isolation of endophytic bacteria
The collected roots were rinsed with sterile water to eliminate dirt. Surface bacteria were eradicated by sequential immersion in 70% ethanol for 1 min and 2% sodium hypochlorite for 3 min, followed by multiple rinses in sterile distilled water [12]. The concluding rinse water was cultured on nutrient agar (NA) to verify sterility. Roots that passed the sterility assessment were dissected aseptically and homogenized in sterile saline. Aliquots (100 µL) were spread on NA and incubated at 28 ℃–30 ℃ for 24–48 hours [13]. Separate colonies were consistently subcultured to obtain pure isolates, which were preserved on NA slants at 4 ℃ until required. The isolates constitute the microbial consortium used for formulation and possess plant-beneficial (potential bioinoculant candidate) characteristics, such as phosphate solubilization, inferred from their origin but not individually verified in this investigation [14].
2.3 Preparation of the clinoptilolite–zeolite carrier
Natural clinoptilolite–zeolite was initially hand-sorted to remove visible impurities. The material was then oven-dried at 105 ℃ for 24 h to a constant weight. The dried zeolite was coarsely crushed using a jaw crusher, followed by fine grinding in a disk mill until it passed through a 45-mesh sieve. The ground material was then sieved to obtain the 45–80 mesh fraction, which was used for all subsequent experiments to optimize packing density, pore accessibility, and manageability. The selected mesh size was intended to maximize surface area and porosity for microbial interactions while maintaining the material’s free-flowing, manageable characteristics [15].
The sieved zeolite was heat-treated in a drying oven at 100 ℃ or 200 ℃ for 2 h to reduce adsorbed water and improve porosity. Heating the clinoptilolite samples until 200 ℃ will not change the mineral structure, including porosity, considering structural change starts at 600 ℃ [16]. After cooling in a desiccator, the carrier’s moisture content was calibrated to approximately 4% (w/w). A zeolite sample was oven-dried at 105 ℃ until constant weight to determine the initial moisture content; then, sterile distilled water was added using a sterile spray bottle with continuous mixing, or further drying was conducted to reach the 4% objective [17]. This reduced moisture level was chosen to minimize water activity and metabolic stress during storage, preventing total desiccation of the microbial cells. The conditioned zeolite was preserved in sterile, airtight containers until inoculation [18].
2.4 Formulation design and storage conditions
This study employed a two-factor factorial design with three replications (Table 1), with factor A being thermal treatment temperature (100 ℃ and 200 ℃) and factor B being microbial loading (12.5%, 25%, and 50% w/w) [19].
Table 1. A two-factor factorial experimental design: Thermal treatments (factor A) and microbial loadings (factor B), with sampling times
|
Thermal Treatment (℃) |
Microbial Loading (% w/w) |
Replicates (n) |
Sampling Times (days) |
|
100 |
12.5 |
3 |
30, 90, 150 |
|
100 |
25 |
3 |
30, 90, 150 |
|
100 |
50 |
3 |
30, 90, 150 |
|
200 |
12.5 |
3 |
30, 90, 150 |
|
200 |
25 |
3 |
30, 90, 150 |
|
200 |
50 |
3 |
30, 90, 150 |
The bacterial culture used for inoculation was grown in nutrient broth at 30 ℃ for 48 h on an orbital shaker (150 rpm), corresponding to the late-exponential/early-stationary phase (OD₆₀₀ ≈ 1.2–1.5). The culture was concentrated by centrifugation at 5,000 × g for 15 min at 4 ℃, and the pellet was resuspended in sterile physiological saline (0.85% NaCl) to achieve a final cell density of approximately 1.0 × 10¹⁰ CFU mL⁻¹, as determined by preliminary plate counts. This concentrated suspension was used immediately to prepare the formulation [20].
Formulations were prepared by aseptically combining the conditioned clinoptilolite carrier with the concentrated endophytic bacterial culture to achieve microbial loadings of 12.5%, 25%, and 50% (w/w) relative to the total formulation mass [21]. An adequate volume of liquid culture was combined with the carrier to achieve the desired weight loading; the resultant paste-like mixture was thoroughly homogenized using a sterile spatula [22].
A non-zeolite control was prepared by dispensing 1 mL of the concentrated bacterial suspension (approximately 1.0 × 10¹⁰ CFU mL⁻¹) into sterile 2 mL microcentrifuge tubes without any carrier material. The initial bacterial count of the control was determined immediately after preparation (day 0) by serial dilution and plate counting, yielding a baseline value for comparison with the carrier formulations. These control samples were stored under identical conditions and sampled at the same time points as the zeolite-based formulations. Each formulation (approximately 1 g per sample) was subsequently enclosed in sterile, sealed containers and maintained at 0 ℃ in a refrigerated incubator. To minimize moisture exchange, containers remained sealed during sampling. Samples were collected after 30, 90, and 150 days of storage (Table 2) [23].
Table 2. Summary of key experimental parameters and conditions
|
Design Parameter |
Specification |
|
Host plant/tissue |
Tea (Camellia sinensis) – healthy root tissues |
|
Sampling location |
Tea and Quinine Research Center, Gambung, West Java, Indonesia |
|
Isolation medium |
Nutrient Agar (NA) |
|
Isolation incubation |
28 ℃–30 ℃, 24–48 h |
|
Carrier material |
Natural clinoptilolite zeolite |
|
Particle size fraction |
45–80 mesh |
|
Thermal conditioning |
100 ℃ and 200 ℃ (drying oven) |
|
Target carrier moisture |
~4% (w/w), gravimetric control |
|
Microbial loading |
12.5%, 25%, and 50% (w/w) |
|
Storage condition |
0 ℃, sealed sterile containers |
|
Viable count medium |
Plate Count Agar (PCA) |
|
TPC incubation |
30 ℃, 48 h |
|
Sampling times |
30, 90, and 150 days |
2.5 Viable counts (plate count method)
Viable cells were enumerated as colony-forming units per gram of formulation (CFU g⁻¹) using standard plate-count procedures.
Immediately after formulation preparation (day 0), triplicate samples from each treatment were analyzed to determine the initial viable count (CFU₀). These day-0 values served as the baseline for all subsequent calculations [24].
At each sampling interval (30, 90, and 150 days), 1 g of the formulation was suspended in 9 mL of sterile physiological saline (0.85% NaCl) and homogenized by vigorous vortexing for 2 min. For formulations that did not completely disperse, additional gentle grinding with a sterile glass rod was performed to ensure thorough homogenization [25]. Decimal serial dilutions were prepared in the same saline solution, and 100 µL aliquots from appropriate dilutions were spread onto plate count agar (PCA) plates. Plates were incubated at 30 ℃ for 48 h, and colonies in the countable range (30–300 colonies per plate) were counted. Results are expressed as CFU g⁻¹ of formulation. The mean and standard deviation (SD) of CFU g⁻¹ were computed from triplicates for each treatment at each time point [26].
For the non-zeolite control, 1 mL of the stored bacterial suspension was withdrawn at each sampling interval, serially diluted in sterile saline, and plated on PCA following the same procedure. Results are expressed as CFU mL⁻¹.
2.6 Data processing and analysis
Retention (%) for each treatment at each sampling time was calculated as (CFUt / CFU₀) × 100, where CFU₀ is the viable count determined immediately after formulation (day 0) and CFUt is the count at 30, 90, or 150 days of storage [27]. Descriptive statistics (mean ± SD) and graphical representations were produced in Microsoft Excel. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test (α = 0.05). All analyses were conducted using ANOVA [28]. All microbiological techniques adhered to pertinent standards, and endophyte management complied with published guidelines [29].
3.1 Initial bacterial counts
We counted viable cells for all treatment combinations immediately after formulation (day 0) to obtain reliable baseline values for the retention calculations that followed. Table 3 shows the first set of data, which shows the viable counts (CFU g⁻¹) for each combination of microbial loading levels (12.5%, 25%, and 50% w/w) and thermal treatment temperature (100℃ and 200℃) [28]. In this case, w/w means the ratio of microbial mass to the overall mass of the formulation. This shows the real loading percentage based on weight, not volume. These baseline measurements are important because they ensure that microbial retention measurements during the observation period are accurate and consistent [30].
Table 3. Initial viable counts (CFU g⁻¹) on day 0 for all treatment combinations
|
Thermal Treatment |
Microbial Loading |
Mean CFU g⁻¹ |
SD (×10⁹) |
|
100 ℃ |
12.5% |
3.40 × 10⁹ |
± 0.28 |
|
100 ℃ |
25% |
4.85 × 10⁹ |
± 0.42 |
|
100 ℃ |
50% |
6.70 × 10⁹ |
± 0.65 |
|
200 ℃ |
12.5% |
3.35 × 10⁹ |
± 0.31 |
|
200 ℃ |
25% |
4.80 × 10⁹ |
± 0.38 |
|
200 ℃ |
50% |
6.65 × 10⁹ |
± 0.58 |
3.2 Viability retention during cold storage: Factorial analysis
Viable counts were assessed at 30, 90, and 150 days of storage at 0 ℃. Table 4 displays the comprehensive dataset for all treatment combinations, categorized by thermal treatment temperature and microbial loading [30].
Across all clinoptilolite treatments, viable counts at day 30 consistently measured approximately 10⁹ CFU g⁻¹ (Table 5), suggesting that mixing and the moisture adjustment to ~4% did not exert undue stress on the endophytic culture [2, 31-36]. The mineral carrier successfully maintained viability throughout storage. On day 90, mean counts varied from 2.85 × 10⁹ to 5.85 × 10⁹ CFU g⁻¹, contingent upon loading and temperature (Table 5). Conversely, the non-zeolite control significantly declined to roughly 5.0 × 10⁵ CFU g⁻¹ by day 90, illustrating the protective effectiveness of the clinoptilolite carrier under the same conditions. Zeolite-based carriers likely improve survival by regulating microscale water availability and offering physical protection against desiccation and osmotic stress [2, 3].
By day 150, viable counts in all clinoptilolite formulations consistently approximated 10⁹ CFU g⁻¹, with retention rates varying with initial loading (Table 6 and Figure 1). The 12.5% loading maintained 59.7% of its initial population (day 0 baseline), while the 25% and 50% loadings kept 100 °C, respectively (Table 6). This density-dependent trade-off indicates that heightened initial loads may exacerbate competition for limited pore space or nutrients within the carrier matrix, thereby hastening population decline. Similar density effects have been observed in other carrier-based inoculants [2, 36].
A two-way analysis of variance was conducted for each sampling time point to statistically assess the impacts of thermal treatment temperature, microbial loading, and their interaction on viable counts. Table 4 encapsulates the ANOVA findings.
To statistically evaluate the effects of thermal treatment temperature, microbial loading, and their interaction on viable counts, a two-way analysis of variance was performed for each sampling time point.
Table 4. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) results for viable counts at days 30, 90, and 150
|
Source of Variation |
Day 30 |
Day 90 |
Day 150 |
|||
|
|
F-value |
p-value |
F-value |
p-value |
F-value |
p-value |
|
Temperature (A) |
0.32 |
0.58 |
0.28 |
0.61 |
0.35 |
0.56 |
|
Loading (B) |
245.6 |
< 0.001 |
187.3 |
<0.001 |
8.92 |
0.003 |
|
A × B Interaction |
0.15 |
0.86 |
0.12 |
0.89 |
0.18 |
0.84 |
Table 5. Viable counts (CFU g⁻¹) at days 30, 90, and 150 for all treatment combinations
|
Temp. |
Loading |
Day 30 (× 10⁹) |
SD |
Day 90 (× 10⁹) |
SD |
Day 150 (× 10⁹) |
SD |
|
100 ℃ |
12.5% |
3.38 |
± 0.30 |
2.89 |
± 0.25 |
2.03 |
± 0.18 |
|
100 ℃ |
25% |
4.80 |
± 0.45 |
4.12 |
± 0.40 |
2.18 |
± 0.22 |
|
100 ℃ |
50% |
6.65 |
± 0.60 |
5.85 |
± 0.55 |
2.22 |
± 0.20 |
|
200 ℃ |
12.5% |
3.32 |
± 0.28 |
2.85 |
± 0.24 |
1.98 |
± 0.17 |
|
200 ℃ |
25% |
4.75 |
± 0.42 |
4.08 |
± 0.38 |
2.15 |
± 0.20 |
|
200 ℃ |
50% |
6.60 |
± 0.55 |
5.80 |
± 0.52 |
2.18 |
± 0.19 |
Table 6. Retention (%) relative to day-0 baseline for all treatment combinations
|
Temp. |
Loading |
Day 30 |
Day 90 |
Day 150 |
|
100 ℃ |
12.5% |
99.4 |
85.0 |
59.7 |
|
100 ℃ |
25% |
99.0 |
84.9 |
45.3 |
|
100 ℃ |
50% |
99.3 |
87.3 |
33.1 |
|
200 ℃ |
12.5% |
99.1 |
85.1 |
59.1 |
|
200 ℃ |
25% |
99.0 |
85.0 |
44.8 |
|
200 ℃ |
50% |
99.2 |
87.2 |
32.8 |
The ANOVA revealed that microbial loading had a highly significant effect on viable counts at all time points (p < 0.001 at days 30 and 90; p = 0.003 at day 150). In contrast, thermal treatment temperature (100 ℃ vs. 200 ℃) showed no significant effect at any sampling time (p > 0.05), and the interaction between temperature and loading was also non-significant (p > 0.05) [33]. These results indicate that the two heat treatment temperatures performed similarly in preserving viability, and their effects were consistent across all loading levels. Figure 1 presents viable counts at day 150 as bar charts with error bars (mean ± SD), with significant differences among loading levels indicated by lowercase letters (p < 0.05, Tukey’s HSD post hoc test) [34]. The non-zeolite control decreased dramatically during storage, from an initial count of approximately 1.0 × 10¹⁰ CFU per sample to 5.0 × 10⁵ CFU per sample on day 90, and became undetectable on day 150. This sharp decline underscores the protective efficacy of the clinoptilolite carrier under identical storage conditions [33].
3.3 Retention rates and density-dependent effects
Retention rates were calculated relative to the day-0 baseline (CFU₀) for each treatment combination. Table 6 presents the percent retention at days 30, 90, and 150. By day 150, retention rates showed a clear inverse relationship with initial loading: the 12.5% loading preserved approximately 59% of its initial population, whereas the 25% and 50% loadings retained only 45% and 33%, respectively (Table 6) [35]. This density-dependent decline was consistent across both temperature treatments. Several interconnected mechanisms may explain this observation:
First, spatial constraints within the carrier matrix are fundamental. The microstructural basis for this density-dependent effect becomes evident when examining the carrier architecture (Figure 2). With pore dimensions of 1–10 μm and bacterial cell diameters of 1–5 μm, each pore can accommodate only a limited number of cells. At 12.5% loading (∼3.4 × 10⁹ CFU g⁻¹), cells likely occupy pores in a dispersed pattern with adequate spacing. However, at 50% loading (∼6.7 × 10⁹ CFU g⁻¹), pore occupancy approaches or exceeds the optimal carrying capacity, forcing cells into closer proximity. This overcrowding intensifies competition for available microhabitats, leading to accelerated mortality when initial loading exceeds the carrier’s finite pore volume [36].
Second, nutrient limitations become more acute at higher cell densities. The confined pore spaces contain limited nutrients, derived either from residual organic matter in the zeolite or from carryover from the culture medium. At higher initial loadings, these nutrients are consumed more rapidly, potentially leading to early starvation stress [37].
Third, the accumulation of metabolic waste products may reach inhibitory levels sooner in densely populated microenvironments, creating localized toxicity. Comparable density-dependent effects have been reported in other carrier-based inoculants, where moderate initial loadings often yield better long-term survival than excessively high loadings. These findings suggest that optimizing microbial load rather than simply maximizing initial cell numbers is critical for formulation design.
3.4 Carrier microstructure and design implications
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) coupled with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) was used to characterize the microstructure of the clinoptilolite carrier. Figure 2 presents representative SEM micrographs at 500× and 5000× magnification, revealing angular, porous particles with irregular surfaces [10, 18]. At higher magnification, numerous microscale voids and channels are visible, with pore sizes predominantly in the 1–10 μm range (estimated from image analysis). These dimensions are particularly significant given that bacterial cells typically measure 1–5 μm in diameter, indicating that individual pores can accommodate only a limited number of cells [2]. This microstructural observation provides direct physical evidence supporting the density-dependent mortality mechanism discussed in Section 3.3: at 50% loading (∼6.7 × 10⁹ CFU g⁻¹), pore occupancy likely exceeds optimal carrying capacity, intensifying spatial competition compared to 12.5% loading (∼3.4 × 10⁹ CFU g⁻¹).
The observed pore architecture is well-suited for bacterial colonization, as it creates protective microhabitats that shield cells from shear forces during handling while still allowing nutrient diffusion and waste exchange [14]. This pore size range is consistent with previous reports on clinoptilolite microstructure [8, 10, 16] and supports its potential as a microbial carrier matrix.
The EDS spectrum (Figure 3) confirms the expected elemental composition, showing predominant signals of silicon (Si) and aluminum (Al) characteristic of the clinoptilolite aluminosilicate framework, along with minor peaks corresponding to exchangeable cations (Ca²⁺, K⁺, Mg²⁺). This elemental profile corroborates the carrier’s moisture-buffering and ion-exchange capabilities, which are relevant to maintaining stable microenvironments for microbial survival during storage [9, 10]. The aluminosilicate framework can adsorb water and exchange cations, potentially helping to buffer against osmotic stress and maintain favorable ionic conditions within pores—factors that likely contributed to the sustained viability (> 10⁹ CFU g⁻¹ for 150 days) observed across all formulations.
From a formulation design standpoint, the selected parameters, 45–80 mesh particle size, thermal conditioning at 100 ℃–200 ℃, and approximately 4% moisture content, produced a consistent and effective carrier. Our results support the scientific basis for these choices:
The performance of clinoptilolite-based carriers can be contextualized by comparison with other common carrier materials reported in the literature. Peat-based formulations, while widely used, often suffer from batch-to-batch variability and inconsistent moisture retention [2, 5]. Studies using peat carriers have reported declines in viability of 1–2 log units over 3–6 months at ambient temperatures (Q). In contrast, our clinoptilolite formulations maintained counts within the same log order (10⁹ CFU g⁻¹) throughout 150 days at 0 ℃. Vermiculite, another mineral carrier, has shown good moisture retention but lower mechanical stability [15]. The rigid crystalline structure of clinoptilolite offers advantages in terms of physical stability and reproducible pore architecture, as evidenced by the consistent performance across replicate samples in this study.
3.5 Limitations and future directions
This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged and addressed in future research: First, the endophytic bacterial isolates were not identified at the species or strain level. While their plant-beneficial potential is inferred from their origin (healthy tea roots), specific functional traits such as phosphate solubilization, nitrogen fixation, or phytohormone production were not verified. Future studies should include molecular identification (e.g., 16S rRNA sequencing) and functional characterization of the isolates to enable strain-specific optimization of carrier formulations [24-27]. Second, although thermal treatment was applied at two temperatures (100 ℃ and 200 ℃), the lack of a significant difference between them suggests that more extreme temperature variations or different treatment durations might be needed to observe effects. Alternatively, the benefits of heat treatment may already be saturated at 100 ℃, making 200 ℃ unnecessary. Future optimization studies could explore a wider range of temperatures and include untreated controls to quantify the baseline effect of heat conditioning. Third, the study was conducted under controlled laboratory conditions (0 ℃ storage) without field validation. While cold storage is practical for many agricultural applications, real-world performance may be affected by fluctuating temperatures and humidity, as well as interactions with soil or plant environments. Field trials are needed to evaluate whether the viability preserved during cold storage translates into effective plant colonization and growth promotion under actual growing conditions. Fourth, the absence of significant temperature × loading interactions indicates that these factors act independently, however, mechanistic studies using microscopic observation (e.g., confocal microscopy or fluorescence in situ hybridization) could provide direct evidence of how cells distribute within carrier pores and how spatial competition evolves. Fifth, the study focused solely on viability preservation and did not assess the functional integrity of the preserved cells. Future work should include bioassays to confirm that cells recovered from storage retain their plant growth-promoting activities (e.g., indole acetic acid production and phosphate solubilization) [27, 35]. Finally, while the 45–80 mesh particle size and 4% moisture content were effective, systematic optimization studies (e.g., response surface methodology) could identify the precise parameter combination that maximizes long-term survival for specific endophyte strains.
A clinoptilolite-zeolite carrier with regulated characteristics (45–80 mesh particle size, thermal conditioning at 100 ℃, and approximately 4% moisture) successfully preserved the viability of endophytic bacteria originally isolated from tea roots during cold storage, supporting their potential as bioinoculants. Following 5 months at 0 ℃, viable counts remained around 10⁹ CFU g⁻¹ across all treatments, exhibiting retention of 33%–60% relative to the baseline at day 0. The non-zeolite control showed significantly lower numbers by day 90, confirming that the mineral carrier provided substantial protection. Key findings from this study include:
Notably, thermal treatment temperature did not significantly affect viability preservation at any time point (p > 0.05), indicating that the lower temperature (100 ℃) is sufficient—a finding with practical implications for industrial scalability, as lower temperatures reduce energy consumption and processing costs without compromising product quality. The inverse relationship between initial loading and percentage retention suggests that optimizing microbial load—balancing initial population with long-term survival—is critical for formulation design. Furthermore, optimizing parameters such as carrier activation, moisture content, and strain-specific physiology will be crucial for advancing the application of these findings in agronomic practices within tea systems. These results support the use of clinoptilolite as a customizable, natural carrier material for durable bioinoculant compositions.
The authors thank the Tea and Quinine Research Center (Gambung, West Java) for facilitating field sampling and laboratory support. We also acknowledge the Research and Development Center for Mineral and Coal Technology (Indonesia) and the National Research and Innovation Agency (Indonesia) for providing research facilities and support.
|
CFU |
Colony-forming units |
|
CFU0 |
Baseline viable count at day-0 (CFU g-1) |
|
CFUt |
Viable count at time t (CFU g-1) |
|
SD |
Standard deviation |
[1] Albareda, M., Rodríguez-Navarro, D.N., Camacho, M., Temprano, F.J. (2008). Alternatives to peat as a carrier for rhizobia inoculants: Solid and liquid formulations. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 40(11): 2771-2779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.07.021
[2] Bashan, Y. (1998). Inoculants of plant growth-promoting bacteria for agriculture. Biotechnology Advances, 16(4): 729-770. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0734-9750(98)00003-2
[3] Bashan, Y., de-Bashan, L.E., Prabhu, S.R., Hernandez, J.P. (2014). Advances in plant growth-promoting bacterial inoculant technology: Formulations and practical perspectives (1998-2013). Plant and Soil, 378: 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-013-1956-x
[4] Bacon, C.W., White, J.F. (2000). Microbial Endophytes. New York: Marcel Dekker.
[5] Bejarano, A., Sauer, U., Mitter, B., Preininger, C. (2017). Parameters influencing the adsorption of Paraburkholderia phytofirmans PsJN on bentonite, silica, and talc for microbial inoculants. Applied Clay Science, 141: 138-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2017.02.022
[6] Berg, G., Rybakova, D., Grube, M., Köberl, M. (2016). The plant microbiome explored: Implications for experimental botany. Journal of Experimental Botany, 67(4): 995-1002. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv466
[7] Berninger, T., Mitter, B., Preininger, C. (2017). Zeolite-based, dry formulations for conservation and practical application of Paraburkholderia phytofirmans PsJN. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 122(4): 974-986. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.13360
[8] Clagnan, E., Costanzo, M., Visca, A., Di Gregorio, L., et al. (2024). Culturomics- and metagenomics-based insights into soil microbiome preservation and application for sustainable agriculture. Frontiers in Microbiology, 15: 1473666. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1473666
[9] Compant, S., Clément, C., Sessitsch, A. (2010). Plant growth-promoting bacteria in the rhizosphere and endosphere. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 42(5): 669-678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.11.024
[10] Compant, S., Reiter, B., Sessitsch, A., Nowak, J., Clément, C., Ait Barka, E. (2005). Endophytic colonization of Vitis vinifera L. by plant growth-promoting bacterium Burkholderia sp. strain PsJN. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 71(4): 1685-1693. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.4.1685-1693.2005
[11] Izidoro, J.C., Fungaro, D.A., Cataldo, E. (2023). Zeolites synthesized from agro-industrial residues applied in agriculture: A review and future prospects. Soil Use and Management, 40(1): e13003. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.13003
[12] Fadiji, A.E., Xiong, C., Egidi, E., Singh, B.K. (2024). Formulation challenges associated with microbial biofertilizers in sustainable agriculture and paths forward. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and Environment, 3(3): e70006. https://doi.org/10.1002/sae2.70006
[13] Galamini, G., Malferrari, D., Altimari, F., Orlandi, S., Barbieri, L. (2024). From quarry by-products to a zeolites-based Zn fertilizer with increased resistance to rain leaching. Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 379: 113290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2024.113290
[14] Glick, B.R. (2012). Plant growth-promoting bacteria: Mechanisms and applications. Scientifica, 2012: 963401. https://doi.org/10.6064/2012/963401
[15] Gopi, G.K., Meenakumari, K.S., Nysanth, N.S., Subha, P. (2019). An optimized standard liquid carrier formulation for the extended shelf-life of plant growth-promoting bacteria. Rhizosphere, 11: 100160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2019.100160
[16] Cadar, O., Senila, M., Hoaghia, M.A., Scurtu, D., Miu, I., Levei, E.A. (2020). Effects of thermal treatment on natural clinoptilolite-rich zeolite behavior in simulated biological fluids. Molecules, 25(11): 2570. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25112570
[17] Grifasi, N., Ziantoni, B., Fino, D., Piumetti, M. (2025). Fundamental properties and sustainable applications of the natural zeolite clinoptilolite. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 32(48): 27805-27840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33656-5
[18] Hallmann, J., Quadt-Hallmann, A., Mahaffee, W.F., Kloepper, J.W. (1997). Bacterial endophytes in agricultural crops. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 43(10): 895-914. https://doi.org/10.1139/m97-131
[19] Han, X., Shen, Y.Z., Sun, L.T., Shen, J.Z., Mao, Y.L., Fan, K., Wang, S.S., Ding, Z.T., Wang, Y. (2025). Phyllospheric application of Bacillus mucilaginosus mediates the recovery of tea plants exposed to low-temperature stress by alteration of the leaf endophytic community and plant physiology. BMC Microbiology, 25: 177. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-025-03880-1
[20] Hardoim, P.R., van Overbeek, L.S., Berg, G., Pirttilä, A.M., Compant, S., Campisano, A., Döring, M., Sessitsch, A. (2015). The hidden world within plants: Ecological and evolutionary considerations for defining the functioning of microbial endophytes. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 79(3): 293-320. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00050-14
[21] Kabir, M.H., Unban, K., Kodchasee, P., Govindarajan, R.K., et al. (2023). Endophytic bacteria isolated from tea leaves (Camellia sinensis var. assamica) enhanced plant-growth-promoting activity. Agriculture, 13(3): 533. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030533
[22] Herrmann, L., Lesueur, D. (2013). Challenges of formulation and quality of biofertilizers for successful inoculation. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 97: 8859-8873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-013-5228-8
[23] Hu, M., Hei, R.N., Guo, D.J., Luo, J., Lu, C., Xu, W.L., Zhang, Z.Y., Xiao, Q.B., Ma, Y. (2023). Shelf-life enhancement of bio-inoculants through synergistic effects of encapsulation technology and osmotic protectants. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 11(5): 110996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2023.110996
[24] International Organization for Standardization. (2007). ISO 7218:2007: Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs — General requirements and guidance for microbiological examinations. https://www.iso.org/standard/36534.html.
[25] International Organization for Standardization. (2013). ISO 4833-1:2013: Microbiology of the food chain — Horizontal method for the enumeration of microorganisms. Part 1: Colony count at 30 °C by the pour plate technique. https://www.iso.org/standard/53728.html.
[26] Jarosz, R., Szerement, J., Gondek, K., Mierzwa-Hersztek, M. (2022). The use of zeolites as an addition to fertilisers – A review. CATENA, 213: 106125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106125
[27] Kukowska, S., Szewczuk-Karpisz, K. (2025). Management of the soil environment using biochar and zeolite in various combinations: Impact on soil condition and economical aspects. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 25: 77-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-024-03927-2
[28] Malusá, E., Vassilev, N. (2014). A contribution to setting a legal framework for biofertilisers. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 98: 6599-6607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-014-5828-y
[29] Mondal, A., Parvez, S.S., Majumder, A., Sharma, K., Das, B., Bakshi, U., Alam, M., Banik, A. (2025). Co-inoculation of Trichoderma and tea root-associated bacteria enhances flavonoid production and abundance of mycorrhizal colonization in tea (Camellia sinensis). Microbiological Research, 293: 128084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2025.128084
[30] Monica, S., Panneerselvam, S., Rajasekaran, R., Nalliappan, S., Kailappan, A., Rangasamy, A. (2025). Recent advances in bioinoculant formulations and their shelf-life: A review. Current Microbiology, 82: 506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-025-04497-3
[31] Nakhli, S.A.A., Delkash, M., Bakhshayesh, B.E., Kazemian, H. (2017). Application of zeolites for sustainable agriculture: A review on water and nutrient retention. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 228: 464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-017-3649-1
[32] Naveen, S., Balachandar, D. (2025). Extracellular polymeric substances of plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria modulate the positive plant-soil feedback in maize via soil conditioning. Science of the Total Environment, 975: 179256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179256
[33] Ryan, R.P., Germaine, K., Franks, A., Ryan, D.J., Dowling, D.N. (2008). Bacterial endophytes: Recent developments and applications. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 278(1): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2007.00918.x
[34] Schulz, B., Boyle, C. (2005). The endophytic continuum. Mycological Research, 109(6): 661-686. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095375620500273X
[35] Sivaram, A.K., Abinandan, S., Chen, C., Venkateswartlu, K., Megharaj, M. (2023). Chapter Two - Microbial inoculant carriers: Soil health improvement and moisture retention in sustainable agriculture. Advances in Agronomy, 180: 35-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2023.03.001
[36] Trivedi, P., Pandey, A., Palni, L.M.S. (2005). Carrier-based preparations of plant growth-promoting bacterial inoculants suitable for use in cooler regions. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 21: 941-945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-004-6820-y
[37] Vassilev, N., Vassileva, M., Martos, V., García del Moral, L.F., Kowalska, J., Tylkowski, B., Malusá, E. (2020). Formulation of microbial inoculants by encapsulation in natural polysaccharides: Focus on the beneficial properties of carrier additives and derivatives. Frontiers in Plant Science, 11: 270. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00270