FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
PESTICIDE PROJECT
Return to
FAN's Pesticide
Homepage
Return to PFOA
Class Action Suit
Return to Newspaper
articles and Documents related to this Class Action
| C8
or C-8:
PFOA is perfluorooctanoic acid and is sometimes called C8.
It is a man-made chemical and does not occur naturally in the environment.
The "PFOA" acronym is used to indicate not only perfluorooctanoic
acid itself, but also its principal salts.
The PFOA derivative of greatest concern and most wide spread use is the
ammonium salt (Ammonium
perfluorooctanoate)
commonly known as C8, C-8, or APFO and the
chemical of concern in the Class Action suit in Ohio.
Ammonium
perfluorooctanoate (APFO or C8)
CAS
No. 3825-26-1. Molecular formula:
 |
Perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA or C8)
CAS No: 335-67-1. Molecular
formula:
|
The DuPont site where
APFO is used as a reaction aid is the Washington Works (Route 892, Washington,
West Virginia 26181) located along the Ohio River approximately seven
miles southwest of Parkersburg, West Virginia.
The Little Hocking
Water Association well field is located in Ohio on the north side of the
Ohio River immediately across from the Washington Works facility. Consumers
of this drinking water have brought a Class Action suit against the Association
and DuPont for the contamination of their drinking water with DuPont's
APFO, which residents and media refer to as C8.
PFOA is used as a
processing aid in the manufacture of fluoropolymers to produce hundreds
of items such as non-stick surfaces on cookware (TEFLON), protective finishes
on carpets (SCOTCHGUARD, STAINMASTER), clothing (GORE-TEX), and the weather-resistant
barrier sheeting used on homes under the exterior siding (TYVEK). |
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2004/jun/science/rr_dupont.html
Science News
June 23, 2004
DuPont disputes
PFOA cancer claim
People working in and living around a DuPont plant where PFOA, which is also
known as C8, is used to create Teflon pans have elevated cancer rates.
Chemical giant DuPont is disputing a recent study that claims exposure to
the perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) used to manufacture Teflon and other fluoropolymers
at one of its chemical plants in West Virginia causes an increased risk of
cancer. The company was reacting to a study that found plant workers and neighbors
whose drinking water contains the perfluorinated compound have cancer rates
several times higher than those of the general population.
Like perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which was once used to make the popular
Scotchguard fabric protector, PFOA appears to be ubiquitous at low levels
in humans living far from any obvious sources. The mystery of how these perfluoroalkyl
acids get into people has prompted investigations by academic scientists,
industry, and the U.S. EPA. PFOA is acknowledged to cause cancer in animals,
but studies of industrially exposed workers have not shown a conclusive cancer
link. A preliminary EPA risk assessment released last
year raised the possibility that PFOA at levels close to those currently found
in women’s blood might pose a developmental risk to children (Environ.
Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 201A–202A). EPA is due to release a more
complete risk assessment this summer (www.epa.gov/opptintr/pfoa/).
However, in this case, the cancer concerns stem not from PFOA’s global
distribution, but instead from local releases. DuPont’s Washington Works
plant, located on the Ohio River, has used PFOA—also called C8—for
more than 50 years. For most of that time, DuPont released PFOA into the air,
local landfills, and the adjacent Ohio River. Groundwater around the plant
also contains the perfluoroacid. PFOA water concentrations near the Washington
Works plant range from about 1 part per billion (ppb) to 8 ppb. This concentration
is substantially less than the 150 ppb level of concern established by West
Virginia in 2002.
The West Virginia study was conducted by James Dahlgren,
a toxicologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, on behalf of
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed against DuPont. The 2001
suit alleges that DuPont knowingly contaminated local water systems with PFOA
and that the chemical causes adverse health effects. Dahlgren presented the
data at the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry meeting in Prague,
Czech Republic, in April this year.
Dahlgren and colleagues compared cancer incidence from three different sources
for three different groups: a survey of 599 residents living near DuPont’s
Washington Works plant in West Virginia, unpublished health records of more
than 5000 DuPont employees that were obtained as part of the lawsuit, and
data for cancer prevalence in the United States as a whole.
The class action lawsuit includes all nearby residents who have PFOA levels
of at least 0.5 micrograms per liter in their drinking water and have lived
in the area for at least a year.
Dalgren and his colleagues found that plant neighbors and DuPont workers have
similar kinds of cancer, with elevated rates for prostate
cancer in young men and cervical and uterine cancer in women. They
also found higher rates of uncommon cancers, such as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma,
leukemia, and multiple myeloma.
The kinds of cancers and their presence in young people
point to PFOA exposure, Dahlgren says. “These are unusual cancers in
young people, people between 40 and 50 years old. They are endocrine-disruptor-type
cancers—prostate, breast, cervical—and this pattern has been seen
in prior studies of workers involved with perfluorinated chemicals,”
he adds. “It’s possible that the explanation is some factor other
than PFOA exposure, but the most likely explanation is exposure to PFOA and
other perfluorinated compounds.”
“Based on what we have seen, we question the scientific validity of
the conclusion in the report,” counters Robin Leonard, principal epidemiologist
for DuPont. For example, he says, the study did not control for other factors
that might affect cancer rates. “There is no indication that other factors
impacting the health of populations were considered or analyzed,” Leonard
charges.
Meanwhile, DuPont is conducting its own $1 million survey of possible PFOA
effects on 750 volunteer employees at the Washington Works plant. The goal
is to compare the results of employees who work in the company's Teflon unit,
the area where PFOA is primarily used, and those who work elsewhere in the
plant. —REBECCA RENNER
Related Web links
* DuPont C8 website; www.c8inform.com
* Environmental Group, Ohio Citizen Action Washington Works site; www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/dupont_c8/dupont_c8.html
* Environmental Working Group’s report on perfluorinated compounds;
www.ewg.org/reports/pfcworld