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://www.mariettatimes.com/news/story/0722202004_new03c8dfgh.asp
July 22, 2004
The Marietta Times
More area participants needed
for study of C8
By Tim Brust, Special to The Times
DECATURVILLE - Officials
organizing a study on the possible effects of a chemical called C8 are hoping
residents who've been asked to participate respond to the invitation in the
next week or two.
To determine if C8, or ammonium perfluorooctanoate, released into the air
or water might pose any serious health effects, researchers want to ask those
who live in Little Hocking and surrounding areas about their backgrounds and
health and determine the concentration of the chemical in their blood.
At a meeting of the Community Advisory Committee Wednesday night, organizers
said less than a third of the families who were randomly selected to participate
in the study have responded.
"To date ... we have received back 46 households willing to participate,
totaling 107 people," said David Freeman, Decatur Community Association
trustee.
Testing is scheduled to begin Aug. 2.
"We will try to get as many people as possible examined ... that week,"
said Dr. Edward Emmett, a University of Pennsylvania researcher leading the
effort.
Concern about C8 in the air and water surfaced in 2001 when a class action
suit was filed against DuPont. The chemical company uses C8 in the production
of Teflon at its plant in Washington, W.Va.
Emmett told the members of the committee and the half dozen concerned residents
at the meeting that the limited research available on the effects of C8 were
"poor scientific studies."
"It's a very confused situation," he said.
He hopes that after all the information from this study is examined they'll
have a good idea how much C8 is actually getting into the bloodstreams of
the general population and if it has a health effect.
Emmett said the level of C8 is about 4 parts per billion in residents of suburban
Washington, D.C., and close to 1,000 parts per billion for workers exposed
to it regularly.
He said testing of the general public might take place sometime in the future,
but it would be meaningless until they determine what the average concentrations
in the blood are and if a certain amount is dangerous.
"It doesn't mean anything until you can put it into perspective,"
he said.
In a related matter, an Ohio EPA official at the meeting warned residents
that it was unlikely that devices claiming to be able to remove C8 from drinking
water are credible.
"There's been no technology we have seen that can remove C8 ... from
drinking water," said Sarah Wallace.
Wallace made the remarks after seeing an ad for such a device. She said she'd
forward it on to the Ohio Attorney General's Office.
"Claiming you can do so isn't really legal," she said.