Peloids and pelotherapy: Historical evolution, classification and glossary

With 201 citations, the standard reference for peloid classification and terminology. Published in Applied Clay Science, Gomes and Carretero’s review is the paper researchers cite when they need to establish what type of peloid they are working with — the taxonomy that distinguishes peat from fango, sapropel, clay muds, and marine sediments.

The Classification Framework

The review establishes a multi-dimensional classification of peloids covering: geological origin (organic vs. mineral), water type used in preparation (freshwater, mineral water, seawater, thermal water), botanical/mineral composition, degree of maturation, and geographic provenance. Peat is classified as an organic peloid — formed primarily from decomposed plant matter, as opposed to mineral peloids like fango (volcanic clay) or sapropel (lake sediment).

Historical Depth

The historical sections trace pelotherapy from antiquity — mud and earth applications for healing appear across ancient Egyptian, Roman, and Greek medicine — through to the formalisation of balneology as a medical discipline in the 19th century. This context is important for two reasons: it demonstrates that peloid therapy is not a fringe practice but one with centuries of empirical documentation, and it shows how the modern scientific evidence base built on a long tradition of clinical observation.

Terminological Significance

Standardised terminology matters for this field because different traditions use different names for similar things: “moor mud,” “peat bath,” “Moorbad,” “peloid,” “Heilmoor,” “turba,” and “Moortherapie” all describe overlapping but not identical concepts. Gomes and Carretero’s glossary gives researchers a shared vocabulary. The terminology sections of this site draw on this framework.