The presence of erionite in North American geologies and the estimated mesothelioma potency by region

Figures & data

Figure 1. Modified from Van Gosen et al. (2013), this figure depicts the approximate locations of natural erionite from Sheppard (1996) and Van Gosen et al. (2013). (1) The Killdeer Mountain area, North and South Dakota; (2) Rome, Oregon; (3) Lander County, Nevada; (4) San Bernardino County, California; (5) Bowie, Arizona.

Table 1. The model predicted mesothelioma potency factors for various aspect ratios of the general erionite compositions.

Erionite-Ca
SiO2: 64.91 Fe2O3: 0.07 MgO: 0.51
AR	4	7	10	13	16	Mean
RM	0.13	0.83	1.74	2.79	3.96	1.89
Erionite-Na
SiO2: 66.91 Fe2O3: 1.47 MgO: 0.40
AR	4	7	10	13	16	Mean
RM	0.56	3.54	7.46	11.98	16.99	8.11
Erionite-K
SiO2: 71.58 Fe2O3: 2.77 MgO: 0.87
AR	4	7	10	13	16	Mean
RM	0.25	1.59	3.35	5.38	7.63	3.64

The chemical composition data were determined from the standard chemical formulas of erionite-Ca, erionite-Na, and erionite-K from Dogan and Dogan (2008). As shown, the mean potency factors and the potency factors at an assumed median aspect ratio of 10 are (unsurprisingly) similar within each erionite group. For purposes of this article, the potency factors for these general erionites can be compared to erionites by region as well as the asbestos fibers in Table 3 using this same model.

Table 2. Chemical compositions and model predicted mesothelioma potency values of erionite fibers at different locations across the western United States.

Location	SiO2	Fe2O3	MgO	AR	RM
Rome, Oregon (Eberly 1964 and Dogan 2006 for chemical composition; Yanamala et al. 2018 for AR)	60.76	3.51	0.96	12.94	3.54
Lander County, Nevada (Papke 1972)	58.79	0.69	0.96	4	0.09
				7	0.56
				10	1.18
				13	1.90
				16	2.70
				Mean RM	1.29
Bowie, Arizona (Wise and Tschernich 1976)	58.38	0.01	0.76	4	0.03
				7	0.19
				10	0.40
				13	0.64
				16	0.91
				Mean RM	0.43
San Bernardino County, California (Sheppard et al. 1965)	59.16	1.48	0.26	4	0.85
				7	5.34
				10	11.25
				13	18.08
				16	25.62
				Mean RM	12.23
Killdeer Mountain Area (Lowers et al. 2010; Carbone et al.. 2011; Saini-Eidukat and Triplett (2014 for Fe2O3 only)	60.33	*0.75	1.51	5.5	0.17
				5.8	0.19
				6.3	0.24
				Mean RM	0.20

When median aspect ratios were unknown, values of 4, 7, 10, 13, and 16 are presented. Mean potency factors and the potency factors at an assumed median aspect ratio of 10 are (unsurprisingly) similar within each location.

* Iron oxide was likely considered an impurity and was reported as zero in Lowers et al. (2010). This value was substituted for 0.75, the iron oxide composition of mainly erionite-containing samples from another study (Saini-Eidukat and Triplett 2014); however, these samples were known to be contaminated with other minerals.

Table 3. Chemical composition and calculated mesothelioma potency factors using Korchevskiy et al.’s model for erionite and asbestos fibers.

Fiber classification	Location	AR	SiO2	Fe2O3	MgO	RM
Erionite	Rome, Oregon	12.94	60.76	3.51	0.96	3.54
	Lander County, Nevada	10	58.79	0.69	0.96	1.18
	Bowie, Arizona	10	58.38	0.01	0.76	0.40
	San Bernardino, California	10	59.16	1.48	0.26	11.25
	Killdeer Mountain, N and S Dakota	5.8	60.33	*0.75	1.51	0.19
	Turkey	11.67	68.09	1.25	0.67	4.53
Crocidolite	Cape Province	11.9	51.03	17.91	2.88	0.71
	Australia	9.99	52.68	18.48	3.90	0.35
Amosite	South Africa	8.59	50.23	2.89	6.01	0.065
Chrysotile	Quebec	7.09	40.20	0.50	39.90	0.0009
	Zimbabwe	7.09	39.70	0.30	40.30	0.0010
	Russia	7.09	38.10	1.40	37.70	0.0018

When median aspect ratios were unknown, erionite fibers had an assumed median aspect ratio of 10 (there were known median aspect ratios of 12.94 for Rome, Oregon, 5.8 for the Killdeer Mountain area, and 11.67 for Turkish erionite). The Turkish erionite and asbestos fiber data was taken from Korchevskiy et al. (2019).

* Iron oxide was likely considered an impurity and was reported as zero in Lowers et al (2010). This value was substituted for 0.75, the iron oxide composition of mainly erionite-containing samples from another study (Saini-Eidukat and Triplett 2014); however, these samples were known to be contaminated with other minerals.

Figure 2. The model predicted mesothelioma potencies (R_M) of the various erionite types (Ca, Na, and K) discussed in Dogan and Dogan (2008) at different aspect ratios.

Figure 3. Mesothelioma potencies (R_M) of the erionite compounds in 5 different regions based on the model described in Korchevskiy et al. (2019) with chemical composition and aspect ratios as inputs.

Figure 4. Mesothelioma potency factors for different types of fibers from various locations. Chrysotile (Quebec, Zimbabwe, and Russia), amosite (South Africa), crocidolite (South Africa and Cape Province, Australia), and Turkish erionite are from Korchevskiy et al. (2019). The rest were calculated by the authors of this paper. When the median aspect ratios of erionites were unknown (Nevada, Arizona, and California), they were assumed to be 10.

Van Gosen BS, Blitz TA, Plumlee GS, Meeker GP, Pierson MP. 2013. Geologic occurrences of erionite in the United States: an emerging national public health concern for respiratory disease. Environ Geochem Health. 35(4):419–430. doi: 10.1007/s10653-012-9504-9.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sheppard RA. 1996. Occurrences of erionite in sedimentary rocks of the Western United States. Denver (CO): US Department of the Interior; p. 96–018.

 Google Scholar

Dogan AU, Dogan M. 2008. Re-evaluation and re-classification of erionite series minerals. Environ Geochem Health. 30(4):355–366. doi: 10.1007/s10653-008-9163-z.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Eberly Jr PE. 1964. Adsorption properties of naturally occurring erionite and its cationic-exchanged forms. Am Mineral. 49(1–2):30–40.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dogan AU, Baris YI, Dogan M, Emri S, Steele I, Elmishad AG, Carbone M. 2006. Genetic predisposition to fiber carcinogenesis causes a mesothelioma epidemic in Turkey. Cancer Res. 66(10):5063–5068. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-4642.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yanamala N, Kisin ER, Gutkin DW, Shurin MR, Harper M, Shvedova AA. 2018. Characterization of pulmonary responses in mice to asbestos/asbestiform fibers using gene expression profiles. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 81(4):60–79. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2017.1408201.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Papke KG. 1972. Erionite and other associated zeolites in Nevada. Reno (NV): MacKay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology.

 Google Scholar

Wise W, Tschernich R. 1976. The chemical compositions and origin of the zeolites offretite, erionite, and levyne. Am Mineral. 61(9–10):853–863.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sheppard RA, Gude 3rd AJ, Munson EL. 1965. Chemical composition of diagenetic zeolities from tuffaceous rocks of the Mojave Desert and Vicinity, California. Am Mineral J Earth Planet Mater. 50(1–2):244–249.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lowers HA, Adams DT, Meeker GP, Nutt CJ. 2010. Chemical and morphological comparison of erionite from Oregon, North Dakota, and Turkey. 2010–1286. Reston (VA): U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. p. 1–13.

 Google Scholar

Saini-Eidukat B, Triplett JW. 2014. Erionite and offretite from the Killdeer Mountains, Dunn County, North Dakota, USA. Am Min. 99(1):8–15. doi: 10.2138/am.2014.4567.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Korchevskiy A, Rasmuson JO, Rasmuson EJ. 2019. Empirical model of mesothelioma potency factors for different mineral fibers based on their chemical composition and dimensionality. Inhal Toxicol. 31(5):180–191. doi: 10.1080/08958378.2019.1640320.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

All data came from published and publicly available literature. All calculations are presented within the article or its Supplementary materials.