Asbestos and Fibrous Erionite

  • Ann G. WylieEmail author
Part of the Current Cancer Research book series (CUCR)


Very narrow fibrils forming bundles of parallel fibers characterize the asbestiform habit. The width of fibrils varies among asbestos types and among occurrences of the same type. The known asbestiform amphiboles have the composition of anthophyllite, tremolite-actinolite-ferroactinolite (prieskaite), cummingtonite-grunerite (amosite and montasite), magnesioarfvedsonite-arfedsonite, magnesioriebeckite-riebeckite (crocidolite), winchite (Libby amphibole), richterite, and fluoro-edenite-edenite. Amphiboles are common rock-forming minerals that normally occur in a prismatic or massive habit and are not asbestos. The most widely exploited type of asbestos is chrysotile, a member of the serpentine group of minerals. Erionite is a fibrous zeolite; when asbestiform, it is called woolly erionite. This chapter describes the characteristics of these minerals as they occur in an asbestiform habit.


Asbestos Tremolite-asbestos Actinolite-asbestos Ferroactinolite-asbestos Anthophyllite-asbestos Amosite Crocidolite Edenite-asbestos Winchite-asbestos Richterite-asbestos Chrysotile-asbestos Woolly erionite 


  1. Addison J, Davies LST (1990) Analysis of amphibole asbestos in chrysotile and other minerals. Ann Occup Hyg 34:159–175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson GR, Rose D, Thomas K, et al. (1981) Collection, analysis and characterization of vermiculite samples for fiber content and asbestos contamination. Midwest Research Institute report for the US Environmental Protection Agency Project 4901-A32 under EPA Contract 68-01-5915, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Beard ME, Ennis JT, Crankshaw OS, et al. (2007) Preparation of nonasbestiform amphibole minerals for method evaluation and Health Studies Summary Report and appendices. Prepared for Martin, Harper, NIOSH, Morgantown, WV by RTI International. (Hearl F, Personal communication, CDC/NIOSH/OD)Google Scholar
  4. Bish DL, Chipera SJ (1991) Detection of trace amounts of erionite using X-ray powder diffraction: erionite in tuffs of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and central Turkey. Clay Clay Miner 39:437–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bish DL, Ming DW (eds) (2001) Natural zeolites: occurrence, properties, applications, Reviews in mineralogy and geochemistry, vol 45. Mineralogical Society of America, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Bloss FD (1971) Crystallography and crystal chemistry: an introduction. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  7. Cametti G, Pacella A, Mura F et al (2013) New morphological chemical and structural data of woolly erionite-Na from Durkee, Oregon, USA. Am Mineral 98:2155–2163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell WJ, Huggins CW, Wylie AG (1980) Chemical and physical characterization of amosite, chrysotile, crocidolite, and nonfibrous tremolite for oral ingestion studies by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. US Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 8452. United States Department of the Interior.Google Scholar
  9. Deer WA, Howie RA, Zussman J (1997) Rock forming minerals. Volume 2B: double-chain silicates, 2nd edn. The Geological Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Deer WA, Howie RA, Wise WS et al (2004) Rock forming minerals. Volume. 4B: framework silicates; silica minerals, feldspathoids and the Zeolites, 2nd edn. The Geological Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Deer WA, Howie RA, Zussman J (2009) Rock forming minerals. Volume 3B: layered silicates; excluding micas and clay minerals. The Geological Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Dogan AU, Dogan M (2008) Re-evaluation and reclassification of erionite. Environ Geochem Health 30:355–366CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dorling M, Zussman J (1987) Characteristics of asbestiform and nonasbestiform calcic amphiboles. Lithos 20:469–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eborn SK, Aust AE (1995) Effect of iron acquisition on induction of DNA single-strand breaks by erionite, a carcinogenic mineral fiber. Arch Biochem Biophys 316:507–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ecology and Environment, Inc (EEI) (2005) El Dorado Hills naturally occurring asbestos multimedia exposure assessment. El Dorado Hills, California Preliminary Assessment and Site Inspection Report Interim Final, LabCor Contract No. 68-W-01-012; TDD No.: 09-04-01-0011; Job No.: 001275.0440.01CP (Lee RJ, personal communication)Google Scholar
  16. EPA (1993) Test Method: method for the determination of asbestos in bulk building materials. Perkins RL, Harvey BW. EPA/600/R-93/116Google Scholar
  17. EPA US (2006) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Produced Access Database, Libby Montana airborne particles; in the matter of United States of America vs. WR Grace, et al, CR-05-070 M-DWM (D. Montana), 2005–2006 (Lee RJ, personal communication)Google Scholar
  18. Gianfagna A, Andreozzi B, Ballirano P et al (2007) Structural and chemical contrasts between prismatic and fibrous fluoro-edenite from Biancavilla, Sicily, Italy. Can Mineral 45:249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibb GW, Hwang CY (1980) Dimensions of airborne asbestos fibers. In: Wagner JC (ed) Biological effects of mineral fibers, vol 1. IARC Scientific Publication #30, Lyon, pp 69–77Google Scholar
  20. Greenwood WS (1998) A mineralogical analysis of fibrous talc. Master of Science Thesis, Department of Geology, University of Maryland, College Park, MDGoogle Scholar
  21. Gude AJ, Sheppard RA (1981) Woolly erionite from the Reese River zeolite deposit, Lander County Nevada and its relations to other erionites. Clay Clay Miner 29:378–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guthrie G, Mossman B (eds) (1993) Health effects of mineral dusts, Reviews in mineralogy, vol 28. Mineralogical Society of America, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  23. Harper M, Lee EG, Doorn SS et al (2008) Differentiating non-asbestiform amphibole and amphibole asbestos by size characteristics. J Occup Environ Hyg 5:761–770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hawthorne FC, Oberti R, Ventura GD, Mottana A eds (2007) Amphiboles: Crystal Chemistry, Occurrence, and Health Issues. Reviews in Mineralogy. Vol. 67. Mineralogical Society of America, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Hawthorne FC, Oberti R, Harlow GE, Maresch WV, Martin RF, Schumacher SC, Welch MD (2012) Nomenclature of the amphibole supergroup. Am Miner 97:2031–2048.Google Scholar
  26. Hodgson AA (1979) Chemistry and physics of asbestos. In: Michaels L, Chissick SS (eds) Asbestos. Vol. 1. Applications and Hazards. Wiley, New York, pp 67–114Google Scholar
  27. Hume LA, Rimstidt JD (1992) The biodurability of chrysotile asbestos. Am Mineral 77:1125–1128Google Scholar
  28. Keeling JL, Raven MD, Self PG, et al. (2008) Asbestiform antigorite occurrence in South Australia. Proc 9th Int Conf Applied Mineralogy, Brisbane, Australia, pp 329–336Google Scholar
  29. Leake BE, Woolley AR, Arps CES et al (1997) Nomenclature of amphiboles: report of the Subcommittee on Amphiboles of the International Mineralogical Association, Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names. Can Mineral 35:219–246Google Scholar
  30. Leake BE, Woolley AR, Birch WD et al (2004) Nomenclature of amphiboles: additions and revisions to the International Mineralogical Association’s amphibole nomenclature. Am Mineral 89:883–887Google Scholar
  31. Lippmann M, Timbrell V (1990) Particle loading in the human lung: human experience and implications for exposure limits. J Aerosol Med 3:S155–S168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Matassa R, Familiari G, Relucenti M et al (2015) A deep look into erionite fibres: an electron microscopy investigation of their self-assembly. Sci Report 5:16757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meeker GP, Bern AM, Brownfield IK et al (2003) The composition and morphology of amphiboles from the Rainy Creek Complex, near Libby Montana. Am Mineral 88:1955–1969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mumpton FA, Thompson CS (1975) Mineralogy and origin of the Coalinga asbestos Deposit. Clay Clay Miner 23:131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. NIOSH (2011) Asbestos fibers and other elongate mineral particles: state of the science and roadmap for research. Current Intelligence Bulletin 62. DHHS:CDC Pub. No. 2011–159Google Scholar
  36. Nolan RP, Langer AM, Ross M et al (eds) (2001) Health effects of chrysotile asbestos: contribution of science to risk-management decisions. Mineralogical Society of Canada, Ontario. Special publication 5Google Scholar
  37. O’Hanley DS (1986) The origin and mechanical properties of asbestos. Master of Science thesis, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MNGoogle Scholar
  38. Paoletti L, Bruni BM (2009) Caratterizzazione dimensionale di fibre anfiboliche nel polmone e nella pleura di cassi di mesothelioma da esposizione ambientale. Med Lav 100:11–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Pooley FD, Clark N (1980) A comparison of fibre dimensions in chrysotile, crocidolite and amosite particles from sampling of airborne dust and from post mortem lung tissue. IARC Sci Publ 30:79–86Google Scholar
  40. Redwood SD (1993) Crocidolite and magnesite associated with lake superior-type banded iron formation in Chapare Group of eastern Andes, Bolivia. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy. Section B: Appl Earth Sci 102:114–122Google Scholar
  41. Shedd KB (1985) Fiber dimensions of crocidolites from Western Australia, Bolivia, and the Cape and Transvaal Provinces of South Africa. US Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 8998. US Department of the InteriorGoogle Scholar
  42. Shedd KB, Virta RL, Wylie AG (1982) Size and shape characterization of fibrous zeolites by electron microscopy. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 8674. US Department of the InteriorGoogle Scholar
  43. Siegrist HG, Wylie AG (1980) Characterizing and discriminating the shape of asbestos particles. Environ Res 23:348–361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Timbrell V (1975) Alignment of respirable asbestos fibres by magnetic fields. Ann Occup Hyg 18:299–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Timbrell V, Pooley F, Wagner JC (1970) Characteristics of respirable asbestos fibers. Proc Int Conf Pneumoconiosis, Shapiro HA (ed), Oxford University Press, pp 120–125Google Scholar
  46. Turcotte DL (1986) Fractals and Fragmentation. J Geophys Res 91:1921–1926Google Scholar
  47. Van Gosen B (2007) The geology of asbestos in the United States and its practical applications. Environ Eng Geosci 13:55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Gosen BS, Blitz TA, Plumlee GS et al (2013) Geologic occurrences of erionite in the United States: an emerging national public health concern for respiratory disease. Environ Geochem Health 35:419–413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Orden DR, Allison KA, Lee RJ (2008) Differentiating amphibole asbestos from non-asbestos in a complex mineral environment. Indoor Built Environ 17:58–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Verkouteren JR, Wylie AG (2002) Anomalous optical properties of fibrous tremolite, actinolite and ferro-actinolite. Am Mineral 87:1090–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Watson MB (1999) The effect of intergrowths on the properties of fibrous anthophyllite. Master of Science thesis, Department of Geology, University of Maryland, College Park, MDGoogle Scholar
  52. Wylie AG (1979) Optical properties of the fibrous amphiboles. Ann N Y Acad Sci 330:600–605Google Scholar
  53. Wylie AG (1993) Modeling asbestos populations: a fractal approach. Can Mineral 30:437–446Google Scholar
  54. Wylie AG (2016). Amphibole dust: asbestos fibers, fragments, and mesothelioma. Canadian Mineral (in revision)Google Scholar
  55. Wylie AG, Candela PA (2015) Methodologies for determining the sources, characteristics, distribution and abundance of asbestiform and nonasbestiform amphibole and serpentine in ambient air and water. J Toxicol Environ Health Part B: Crit Rev 18:1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wylie, AG, Virta, RL (2016) Size distribution measurements of amosite, crocidolite, chrysotile, and nonfibrous tremolite: digital Repository at the University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
  57. Wylie AG, Shedd KB, Taylor ME (1982) Measurement of the thickness of amphibole asbestos fibers with the scanning electron microscope and transmission electron microscope. In: Heinrich KFJ (ed) Microbeam Analysis. San Francisco Press, San Francisco, CA, pp 181–187Google Scholar
  58. Wylie AG, Virta R, Russek E (1985) Characterizing and discriminating airborne amphibole cleavage fragments and amosite fibers: implications for the NIOSH Method. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 46:197–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wylie AG, Virta RL, Shedd KB, et al. (2015) Size and shape characteristics of airborne amphibole asbestos and amphibole cleavage fragments. Digital Repository at the University of Maryland,

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory for Mineral Deposits Research, Department of GeologyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations