Document LJNoymdpvkML70m0nNq7ovq2z

V Corporate Health Physics 3M Center, 220-2E-02 Corporate Occupational Medicine PO Box 33220 AH716- 0950 Corporate Product Responsibility St. Paul, MN 55133-3220 Corporate Toxicology 651 733 1110 3M Medical Department 0800-27} RECEIVED Fluorochemical Exposure (Serum) Assessment of Decatur Chemical and Film Plant Employees Historically, employees at the 3M Decatur chemical plant have voluntarily participated in a biennial fluorochemical medical surveillance program: Total organic fluorine was measured until 1994 when perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) were assayed. However, the voluntary nature of the medical surveillance program does not necessarily provide for an adequate understanding of the distribution of fluorochemical serum levels in the Decatur workforce. Therefore, the purpose of this assessment was to randomly sample employees at the Decatur chemical plant in order to determine the distribution of employee serum fluorochemical levels according to jobs, building locations and years worked. The overall geometric mean of serum PFOS in chemical plant employees was 0.944 ppm. (95% Cl 0.787-1.126). The highest serum PFOS value measured was 10.600 ppm. Among film plant employees, the overall geometric mean of serum PFOS was 0.136 ppm (95% Cl 0.114-0.161). Approximately 1/3 of these film plant employees had past work history experience in the chemical plant. The distribution of serum PFOS levels in this random sample assessment were similar to those observed through the voluntary medical surveillance program. Because of analytical chemistry method development, the study also assayed five fluorochemicals that had not been previously assayed. Results from this assessment will be used to construct an exposure matrix in the updated retrospective cohort mortality study of the 3M Decatur employee population. The data will also be used to rationalize subcohort & EPA-OTS 000811787W 0D0ail7S7lil 001249 r~c eG==> Cmc~D> i cn rvs r<o> comparisons in the ongoing analysis of health claims data between chemical and film plant employees from 1993-1998. Both the study protocol and final report are submitted. 001250 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 1 of 29 PROTOCOL Epidemiology, 220-3W-05 Medical Department 3M Company S t Paul. MN 55144 Date: September 3, 1998 Title: Fluorochemical Exposure Assessment of Decatur Chemical and Film Plant Employees Study Start Date: September 3,1998 Estimated Date of Final Report: December 31,1998 IRB Approval Date: September 3, 1998 Protocol Number IRB Approval Exempt Expedited X Principal Investigator: Co-investigators: Geary W. Olsen, DVM, PhD1 Perry W. Logan, MS2 Cathy A. Simpson, RN2 Jean M. Burris, RN, MPH1 Michele M. Burlew, M.S.1 John C. Schumpert, MD, MPH1 Jeffrey H. Mandel, MD, MPH1 Study Director: Jeffrey H. Mandel, MD, MPH 1. Medical Department, 3M Company, 220-3W-05, St. Paul, MN 55144 2. 3M EHS&R P.O. Box 2206, Decatur, Alabama 35609-2206 001251 ABSTRACT 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 2 of 29 Employees at the 3M Decatur chemical plant have in the past voluntarily participated in a fluorochemical medical surveillance program. Analysis of the surveillance data has not shown significant associations between the employees' clinical chemistry and hematology tests and either total serum organic fluorine or serum PFOS levels. However, the voluntary nature of the medical surveillance program does not allow for a complete understanding of the distribution of employee fluorochemical serum levels. In order to address this issue, we propose to randomly sample, for statistical purposes, 80 film plant and 125 chemical plant employees to determine their serum levels for perfluorooctane sulfonate, perfluorooctane sulfonate amide, glycine derivative of perfluorooctane sulfonate, perfluorohexane sulfonate, perfluorooctanoic acid, N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamido ethanol and N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamido ethanol. A sub-sample of employees (N = 30) will also be tested for total serum organic fluorine. A brief questionnaire will also be administered to each employee inquiring about current and past work history as well as possible routes of oral ingestion. In addition to those chosen for the random sample, all other chemical and film plant employees will be offered the opportunity to have their blood tested for these fluorochemicals and respond to the questionnaire. Upon completion of this study, the results will serve as a reference regarding fluorochemical exposure reduction efforts in the chemical plant and allow for adequate characterization of the film plant population who will serve as a reference population in health-based studies of chemical plant employees. 001252 INTRODUCTION 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 3 of 29 Employees at the 3M Decatur chemical plant have in the past voluntarily participated in a fluorochemical medical surveillance program. The surveillance program measured for total serum organic fluorine levels until the mid-1990's when serum perfluorooctanoate sulfonate (PFOS) determination, quantifiable by high performance liquid chromatograph mass spectrometry, became incorporated in the biennial medical surveillance examinations. Analysis of the surveillance data has not shown significant associations between the employees' clinical chemistry and hematology tests and either total serum organic fluorine levels [Roach, 1982; Schuman, 1982] or serum PFOS levels [Olsen et al., 1998]. However, the voluntary nature of the medical surveillance program does not lend itself to an appropriate characterization of the distribution of fluorochemical serum levels. For example, presented in Table 1 is the distribution of fluorochemical serum levels by the number of employees who voluntarily participated in the last two medical surveillance examinations (Fall of 1994 and Spring of 1997). Ninety percent of the serum PFOS measurements were below 6 ppm. Nevertheless, it is possible that this distribution may be higher or lower as a result of unknown selection factors that make employees decide to participate, or not participate, in the medical surveillance program. Therefore, the purpose of this proposal is to randomly examine, based on appropriate statistical methods, employees in the Decatur chemical plant in order to determine the distribution of their serum fluorochemical levels. Conducting a random sample analysis will also allow researchers to better understand serum fluorochemical levels in context with the employees' current and past work history. In addition, a random 001253 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 4 of 29 sample of the neighboring 3M Decatur film plant employee population, located at the same site, will also be tested for their fluorochemical serum levels. The film plant employees have served as a comparison population in prior health studies due to their nonoccupational exposure to fluorochemicals. However, their actual serum fluorochemical levels have not been discerned. Health studies can be more fully appreciated if the distributions of employee serum fluorochemical levels at both the chemical and film plants are known. METHODS Overall Summary of Methods We propose to randomly sample, for statistical purposes, 80 film plant and 125 chemical plant employees to determine their serum levels for periluorooctane sulfonate, periluorooctane sulfonate amide, the glycine derivative of periluorooctane sulfonate (i.e., the acetate anion), perfluorohexane sulfonate, perfluorooctanoic acid, N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamido ethanol and N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamido ethanol. A sub-sample of employees (N = 30) will also be tested for total serum organic fluorine. No other serum tests will be performed. A brief questionnaire will also be administered to each employee inquiring about current and past work history as well as possible routes of oral ingestion. In addition to those chosen'for the random sample, all other chemical and film plant employees will be offered the opportunity to have their blood tested for these fluorochemicals and respond to the questionnaire. 001254 A Sample Size Issues 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 5 of 29 Four critical factors were considered to decide the sample size for this study. First, it is important that such a sample be randomly chosen from the employee populations of both the chemical and film plants. Second, the sample size is driven by the need to provide confidence that the exposure in the film plant is very small relative to that of the chemical plant. Third, the sample size should adequately characterize the exposure levels within the chemical plant workplace. Fourth, employees in the chemical and film plant should be offered the opportunity to know what their fluorochemical serum levels are. To address the first two points in the above paragraph, we need to determine the lower 95% confidence bound on the mean of the difference between the serum fluorochemical levels of the chemical plant and the film plant. Provided in Appendix A are the details of the methods used by Dr. Timothy Church, associate professor at the University of Minnesota, who served as a consultant statistician for this protocol development. Briefly, we assumed, based on past medical surveillance data, that the mean serum PFOS levels of the chemical plant employee population is 1.85 ppm. We do not know what the mean serum PFOS level is of film plant employees. However, pooled serum data suggests that the U.S. general population serum PFOS level is in the range of 20 ppb to 40 ppb. Therefore, we assumed the Decatur film plant population will have a mean higher than the general population because of its physical proximity to the chemical plant. If the mean serum PFOS level for the film plant population was assumed to be 200 ppb, the mean difference between the chemical and film plant population would be 001255 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 6 of 29 1.65 ppm (1.85 ppm minus 0.2 ppm). Presented below is the sample size needed from both the chemical and film plant populations to calculate a lower 95% confidence bound on this mean difference. Lower 95% confidence bound on difference: 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Total sample Size needed from both plants: 16 21 32 66 1.55 1.6 121 365 Thus, to obtain a lower 95% confidence bound of 1.50 ppm, based on a mean difference of 1.65 ppm, 33 employees in the film plant and 33 employees in the chemical plant will have to have their serum PFOS levels determined. As can be seen from the above chart, the sample size becomes increasingly large as the lower 95% confidence bound becomes closer to the actual mean difference of 1.65 ppm. Data in Appendix A also provide sample size calculations if the film plant employee population is assumed to have a higher mean serum PFOS level (300 ppb). In this case, to obtain a lower 95% confidence bound of 1.50 ppm, based on a mean difference of 1.55 ppm (1.85 ppm minus 300 ppb), a total sample size of 760 employees is required from both plants. If this is reduced to a lower 95% confidence bound of 1.4 for a mean difference of 1.55 ppm, a much smaller sample size is required (a total of 125 employees from both plants). There is a degree of uncertainty in estimating, for statistical sample size consideration, what the mean serum PFOS level of the film plant population is because approximately 10 percent of the film plant employees may have prior work experience in the chemical plant. In order to address the third issue (sample size should adequately characterize the exposure levels within the chemical plant workplace), we propose to stratify the random 001256 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 7 of 29 sample by building location within the chemical plant. To prevent misclassification of potential workplace exposure experience, we will analyze samples from film plant employees by those who have and have not ever worked in the chemical plant. This is necessary because of the suspected long half-life of serum PFOS (estimated to be at 1000 days). An important caveat that must be considered is that the above sample size calculations have used serum PFOS levels from previous voluntary samples to estimate mean and standard deviation values for serum levels of this chemical. However, in this study we will measure for five specific fluorochemicals (perfluorooctane sulfonate amide, the glycine derivative of perfluorooctane sulfonate, N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamido ethanol and N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamido ethanol) about which we have no information, at this time, as to serum levels. It is suspected that these chemicals are not persistent as they are metabolized to PFOS; thus any difference between serum levels in employees in the film and chemical plants may be quite small. Study Design With the above issues considered, the study investigators propose the following research design: 1. Randomly sample 80 film plant employees. We will assume 80% participation which will provide a study population of approximately 65 employees of which we estimate 50 to 55 will have worked only in the film plant. The remainder will have worked in both the 001257 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 8 of 29 chemical and film plants. (This is based on the assumption that 10 percent of Decatur employees have worked in both plants as mentioned by Decatur Human Resources personnel.) The random sample will be chosen by the following means: a) determine all full-time current film plant employees; b) using a random number generator algorithm, select a sample size of 80 film plant employees. 2. Randomly sample 125 chemical plant employees who are proportionately stratified by the following building locations: 1, 2/48, 3 ,4 and 38/51. We will assume 80% participation which will provide a sample size of approximately 100 employees. The random sample will be chosen by the following means: a) determine all full-time current chemical plant employees; b) using a random number generator algorithm, select a sample size of 125 employees proportionately to the number of employees who work in the five building locations (1,2/48,3,4 and 38/51). This random sample of 80 film plant and 125 chemical plant employees, if 80% participation is obtained, should provide a 95% lower bound confidence interval of, at least, 1.5 ppm if the mean PFOS difference is 1.65 ppm based on assuming the mean employee serum levels are 1.85 ppm for the chemical plant and 0.2 ppm for the film plant. 3. In addition, to the above random samples; we propose to sample all employees (n = 68) who are assigned to the wastewater treatment plant (buildings 36 and 57). 001258 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 9 of 29 4. Because of concerns that may be raised by this study, we will also offer to test all full time chemical or film plant employees who desire to know their serum levels of these seven fluorochemicals. 5. Study participation will require the following: a. Venipuncture with the collection of one vial of blood (approximately 10 cc) for the determination of the seven fluorochemicals. It is anticipated that total serum organic fluorine can also be determined from the same one vial of blood for the 30 individuals who are asked to participate in this analysis. b. Written response to a brief questionnaire that inquires about current and past work history along with the frequency of hand washing and use of gum, chew (tobacco) and cigarette habits of the employee while at work (see Appendix B). c. A signed consent form by the employee (see Appendix C). 6. Each randomly chosen employee (film and chemical) will receive a letter of invitation to participate by plant management. A copy of this letter will be sent to the employee's immediate supervisor. There will also be plant-wide communication which will describe the purpose of this blood collection program (i.e., to determine the distribution of employee serum levels of these fluorochemicals and allow employees to 001259 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 10 of 29 know their own individual values should they so desire). All study participants who are randomly chosen as well as those who volunteer will be informed of their own individual results by a letter sent to them from the 3M Medical Department. Aggregate results of the study will be communicated to plant management and employees. Fluorochemical Analyses All blood will be collected at the Decatur plant by MedAccess (an occupational health clinic located in Decatur, Alabama) under the direction of Cathy Simpson, RN. Based on this study design and the four employee shifts at the Decatur location, it is estimated that blood collection will take approximately four days. MedAccess will centrifuge the blood to obtain the serum. MedAccess will provide the serum to Cathy Simpson, RN who will ship the samples to the 3M Medical Department (St. Paul, MN). Samples will be catalogued and then sent to the 3M Environmental Laboratory for determination of serum perfluorooctane sulfonate, periluorooctane sulfonate amide, glycine derivative of perfluorooctane sulfonate, perfluorohexane sulfonate, perfluorooctanoic acid, N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamido ethanol and N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamido ethanol, via high performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry, under the direction of Dr. Kris Hansen. Total serum organic fluorine will be determined by the 3M SMD chemical analytical laboratory under the direction of Dr. Venkateswarlu Pothapragada. 001260 Data Analysis 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 11 of 29 Through the use of appropriate statistical techniques (e.g., student t-tests, multivariable regression analysis) using SAS software, we will conduct the following analyses: 1. Compare responders and nonresponders from those chosen in the random sample as to their demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, years worked). 2. Compare mean serum fluorochemical levels between the film and chemical plant random samples. Determine the lower 95% confidence bound of the mean difference between these populations. 3. Compare the mean value between the film plant and the chemical plant population who participated (random sample plus those who are not part of the random sample). Determine the lower 95% confidence bound of the mean difference between these populations. 4. Characterize and compare the mean fluorochemical serum measurements within the chemical plant by building location. 5. Compare serum levels by questionnaire items (e.g., examine mean serum fluorochemical levels of those who may have frequent hand to mouth contact via the * 001261 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 12 of 29 compilation of their use of gum, chew and cigarettes to those who do not have frequent use). It should be noted that this study is purely an exposure assessment exercise; medical surveillance information (e.g., serum chemistries, hematology, health questionnaires) is not a component of this study. This information is voluntarily collected on a biennial basis and will be next offered, voluntarily, to Decatur chemical plant employees in the Spring of 1999. Study Time Frame Proposed Study Time Frame ____________ Task________________________________ Estimated Time Frame 1. Obtain current employee list from Decatur HR August, 1998 2. Determine random samples August, 1998 3. Send invitation letter to participate to random sample September, 1998 4. Blood collection SeptVOct., 1998 5. Serum analyses under direction by 3M Env. Lab Serum analyses under direction of Dr. `V' Oct. - Nov., 1998 Oct. - Nov., 1998 6. Data Analyses Nov. - Dec., 1998 7. Final report_____________________________________Dec. 1998__________ 001262 DISCUSSION 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 13 of 29 The objective of this proposed research study is to characterize , via appropriate statistical techniques using random sampling, the distribution of employee serum levels of serum periluorooctane sulfonate, perfluorooctane sulfonate amide, glycine derivative of perfluorooctane sulfonate, perfluorohexane sulfonate, perfluorooctanoic acid, N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamido ethanol and N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamido ethanol at the 3M Decatur chemical and film plants. In addition, for 30 employees the percentage of serum total organic fluorine that is represented by these seven fluorochemicals will be calculated. The data obtained from this exposure assessment investigation will be important for several reasons. This information will allow for a better understanding of the exposure distribution of serum fluorochemical levels in both the chemical and film plant populations. Second, these data may serve as future reference regarding human exposure assessment for the film as well as the chemical plant in the area of health studies and exposure reduction. Third, the data may be used for the construction of an exposure matrix for the anticipated update of the retrospective cohort mortality study of the Decatur employee population. Fourth, this information may provide further insight regarding understanding current fluorochemical serum levels with past and present employee work history data as well as possible routes of oral ingestion. Finally, this study will allow for the opportunity for chemical plant employees to know their own serum levels for these seven fluorochemicals should they so desire. 001263 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 14 of 29 The greatest limitation to the success of this study is employee participation. Because random sampling is critical to the ultimate interpretation of the results from this study, it is important that there be high (i.e., 80%) participation levels from those chosen to participate. It must be emphasized that data analyses will be dependent upon high participation of those chosen in the random sample; nonparticipants will decrease the sample size. Although other employees may volunteer to have their blood drawn, they cannot replace a nonparticipant in the random sample within the data analyses devoted to the random sample component of this study. In order to obtain high participation rates of those employees chosen in the random sample, letters of invitation will be sent to those chosen to participate by 3M Decatur plant management and the 3M Medical Department. Supervisors will be asked to strongly encourage participation of those randomly chosen employees who report to them. Individual data are considered confidential information and will not be disclosed to anyone outside the 3M Medical Department without the employee's written consent. Individual results will be communicated, by letter, to the employee from the 3M Medical Department. Aggregate findings will be communicated to employees and may be used in publications or public presentations. The proposed study must obtain 3MIRB approval. The protocol, any addenda to the protocol, data analyses, and a copy of the'final report will undergo a Quality Assurance audit according to the Standard Operating Procedure entitled, "Procedure for the Creation, Auditing, and Review and Approval of 3M Epidemiology Final Reports. Permanent records of all other data generated during the course of this study are subject 001264 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 15 of 29 to privacy and confidentiality considerations. All data gathered or generated including protocol addenda and the final report will be archived by the Medical Department, 3M Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, according to the Standard Operating Procedure entitled, "Procedure for the Archiving of a 3M Epidemiology Study." 001265 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 16 of 29 REFERENCES Roach DE (1982). Fluorochemical Control Study. 3M Unpublished Report. 3M Company.St. Paul, MN May 25,1982. Schuman LM (1982). Letter to Dr. Frank Ubel (3M Medical Director) concerning Fluorochemical Control Study. April 29, 1982. Olsen GW, Burris JM, Mandel JH, Zobel LR (1998). An epidemiologic investigation of clinical chemistries, hematology and hormones in relation to serum levels of perfluorooctane sulfonate in male fluorochemical production employees. 3M Unpublished Report. 3M Company:St. Paul., MN., April 22,1998. 001266 TABLE 1 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 17 of 29 Distribution of Serum PFOS Levels by Year, 3M Decatur Male Employees, Medical Surveillance Results* PFOS Level 1994 Data N% 0 - < 1 ppm 11 12 1 - < 3 ppm 59 66 3 - < 6 ppm ' 16 18 > = 6 DDI Total 44 88 100 * see reference Olsen et al (1998) 1997 Data N% 29 35 38 45 12 14 56 84 100 001267 APPENDIX A 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 18 of 29 001268 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 19 of 29 Sam ple size calculation for the study of PFO S levels in the blood of workers Authored by Dr. Timothy Church Introduction The sample size calculations are based on the analysis of data from a non-random voluntary sample from the chemical plant in Decatur. There was a total of 96 observations on PFOS levels and 95 on PFOA levels. Table 1 gives the summary statistics on each distribution. Table 2 gives the summary of the log distribution. Figures 1 and 2 are the smoothed natural distributions for PFOS and PFOA, respectively, and Figures 3 and 4 are for the logarithmic counterparts. Note that the log distributions are more symmetric that the natural scale variables. The sample size focused on the PFOS levels. Method The sample size is driven by the need to provide confidence that the exposure in the film plant is very small relative to that of the chemical plant. As shown in Table 1, the mean PFOS level in the voluntary samples is 1.855ppm and the acceptable level for the film plant is below that and expected to be in the range 200-300ppb. The statistic of interest for the sample size is the difference between the chemical plant (assumed to have a mean of 1.855ppm) and the film plant (assumed to have a mean of 0.2-0.3ppm). The object is to compute the sample size necessary to produce 95% confidence that the difference is at least delta, in order to place the film plant mean exposure well below that of the chemical plant. If such confidence does not result, then further study of the film plant exposures is warranted. The sample size calculations were carried out by assuming that the log of the concentration was normally distributed, based on Figure 3, and that the standard deviation on the log scale was 1, regardless of the mean, based on Table 2. Note that both PFOS and PFOA, while showing different mean values, both have a standard deviation of about 1, even though the means and medians are quite different In order to perform the analysis on the log scale, the means had to be transformed to the log scale, by solving the formula E(X)=exp(mu+sigma2/2), for mu where E(X) is the mean on the original scale, and mu and sigma = 1 are the mean and standard deviation on the log scale. For example, under the assumption that the natural mean is 0.2ppm the mean for the log PFOS level in the film plant would be ln(0.2) - sigma2!2 = -2.10944. Transforming the means to the log scale allows computation of the expected difference in the lo" ^<.1* a inu/pr Q5% confidence bound on the difference. The difference on the 001269 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 20 of 29 log scale centers on rnu,. - muj and the variance of the difference is simply 2hi, where muc and muj are the means for the chemical and film plants, respectively, and n is the number of observations per plant. Under the null hypothesis, the mean on the natural scale for the film plant is the observed mean of the chemical plant (1.855ppm) minus the minimum desired difference (e.g., delta = Ippm). Under the alternative hypothesis it is simply either 0.2ppm or 0.3ppm. The mean for the chemical plant is fixed at 1.855ppm for both the null and alternative hypotheses. By this formulation, the alternative hypothesis is the difference of the tranformed alternative-hypothesis means (e.g., 1.855ppm and 0.2ppm) and the null hypothesis is the difference of the transformed null hypothesis means (i.e., 1.855ppm and (1.855delta)ppm). From this formulation, a standard single-sample, two-sided, normal-theory sample size can be calculated, using alpha = 0.5 and beta = 0.05. If the minimum difference is rejected in favor of the alternative, the confidence coefficient on the minimum difference delta will be at least 95%. Standard sample size calculations were performed using S-Plus 4.5 and the transformed means, and sigma = 1. Results Table 3 gives sample sizes based on the lower 95% confidence bound for the difference in mean PFOS level between the chemical plant and the film plant being at least delta. Sample sizes were calculated assuming means of 200ppb and 300ppb for the film plant. For 300ppb the sample sizes are given with delta equal to 1.0 through 1.5ppm in O.lppm steps, and for 200ppb, with delta equal to 1.2 through 1.6 and to 1.55. Sample sizes given are the sum from both plants assuming equal samples from each, i.e., the table gives N where N=2m=2n2, where n* is the sample from plant i = film or chemical. So, for example, if the film plant has a true level of 200ppb, then the expected lower confidence bound on the difference would be 1.55 if the total sample size were 122, 61 from each plant. Recommendation A lower confidence bound of 1.55ppm, which would assure that the film plant has an upper bound of 300ppb (or about 0.5ppm) if the true concentration were 200ppb, is achievable with 125 from both plants. If the true concentration were 300ppb, a lower bound of 455ppb could be attained with a similar sample size. Given that nearly 100 volunteers were obtained previously, this also seems like a feasible number of employees in whom to focus solicitation efforts. 001270 Table 1. *** Summary Statistics for data in: DecExp97 *** PFOS PFOA Min : 0.10000 0.05000 1st Qu.: 0.69125 0.38900 Mean: 1.85501 1.32894 Median: 1.32500 1.06000 3rd Q u .: 2.48250 1.87000 Max: 9.93000 5.31000 Total N: 96.00000 96.00000 NA's : 0.00000 1.00000 Std Dev.: 1.73723 1.08575 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 2 1 of 29 Table 2. *** Summary Statistics for data in: DecExp97 *** Min: 1st Qu.: Mean: Median: 3rd Qu.: Max: Total N: NA'S : Std Dev.: L o g .PFOS -2.30259 -0.36930 0.22868 0.28135 0.90926 2.29556 96.00000 0.00000 0.93310 L o g .PFOA -2.99573 -0.94418 -0.12126 0.05827 0.62581 1.66959 96.00000 1.00000 1.00902 001271 d n ity e> k P fO S Dentity Figure 1 PFOA Dentliy O O iO Figure 4 tog PFOS Density dnH y e> I Figure 2 Log PFO A Density 3 -2 10 Ioq(P F O A p p m ) Figure 3 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 23 of 29 Table 3. Sample size table for Decatur Plant Study Assuming film plant concentration = 300ppb Lower 95% Confidence Bound on Difference: 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Total sample size for both groups (N=2ni=2n2): 20 26 36 58 126 760 Assuming film plant concentration = 200ppb Lower 95% Confidence Bound on Difference: 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.55 1.6 Total sample size for both groups (N=2ni=2n2): 16 22 32 66 122 366 001273 i APPENDIX B 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 24 of 29 001274 3M Company EP1-0006 Page 25 of 29 DECATUR EMPLOYEE QUESTIONNAIRE Thank you for participating in this research study. Please respond to each question with either a short answer or an Y in the appropriate box. N A M E _____________________________________ EMPLOYEE NUM BER________________ __ 1. Have you ever worked in the Chemical Plant? Yes No If iio, please go to question 2 If `yes' a. How many years have you worked in the chemical plant? Years=____________ b. W hat year did you start working in the chemical plant? Year = _____________ 2. Please indicate if you have ever worked in the following areas. Mark an Y in all boxes that apply to you. a. Building 1 b. Buildings 2 and/or 49 c. Building 3 (O S C L/O S Farea) d. Buildings 3 (besides O SC L/O SF area) e. Building 4 North f. Building 4 millroom/extruder g. Building 42 (PackagingFC inerts) h. Film Plant i. W astewater treatment plant (Buildings 36 and 57) j. Other (Please specify)________________________ 3. Thinking about the job that you worked for the longest period of time while employed at 3M Decatur, please answer the following questions. a. Job title:________________________________________ b. When did you work there: From______ (year) to___________ (year) c. Average number of hours per week on this job? Hours =________ d. When you worked overtime, what was your usual job assignment?_________________________ 001275 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 26 of 29 4. Please answer the following questions regarding your current job. Current plant: Chemical Film Current job title:________________________________________________________________________ W hat year did you start working in this current job: Year = __________ Average number of hours per week on this job: Hours = ________ When you work overtime, what is your usual job assignment?_______________________________ 5. Please indicate in which area(s) you work in your current job. Mark an V in all boxes that apply to you. a. Building 1 b. Buildings 2 and/or 49 c. Building 3 (O SCL/O SF area) d. Buildings 3 (besides O S C L/O S F area) e. Building 4 North f. Buildings 4 millroom/extruder g. Building 42 (PackagingFC inerts) h. Film Plant i. W astewater treatment plant (Buildings 36 and 57) j. Other (Please specify)___________________ 6. While at work, do you chew gum? always frequently sometimes rarely never 7. While at work, do you chew tobacco? always frequently sometimes rarely never 8. While at work, do you smoke cigarettes? always frequently sometimes rarely never 9. How frequently do you wash you hands before eating while in the workplace? Mark only one box. always frequently sometimes rarely never 10. What is your height? 11. What is your weight? Feet = ________Inches = _______ Pounds = ________ 001276 APPENDIX C 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 27 of 29 001277 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 28 of 29 CONSENT FORM FOR COLLECTION OF BLOOD FOR SERUM FLUOROCHEMICAL LEVEL DETERMINATION INTRODUCTION You are being invited to participate in a research study. Your participation involves donating one test tube of blood. Your blood will only be tested for the amount and kind of fluorochemicals it contains. No other tests will be performed on your blood. Please review this consent form carefully and be sure your questions are answered before you make a decision to participate. The plant nurse, Cathy Simpson, RN, will be available to answer any questions that you may have about this study. PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of the study is to determine how much and what types of fluorochemicals are found in workers at the Decatur plant. This information will assist 3M to better understand fluorochemicals and how to reduce such exposures in the workplace. STUDY PROCEDURES Your blood will be drawn with a needle stick and require one tube (10 ml) of blood. The blood will be analyzed for seven fluorochemicals: periluorooctane sulfonate, periluorooctane sulfonate amide, the glycine derivative of periluorooctane sulfonate, perfluorohexane sulfonate, perfluorooctanoic acid, N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamido ethanol and N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamido ethanol. A sub-sample of employees will also be tested for total serum organic fluorine. No other tests will be performed on your blood. A letter will be sent to you informing you of your blood levels upon completion of the analyses. A brief questionnaire will also be administered to each employee inquiring about current and past work history as well as possible routes of oral ingestion. POTENTIAL RISKS/BENEFITS The only discomfort you may feel is from the needle stick. You may also have some temporary redness/bruising/swelling in this area after blood collection. BENEFITS There will be no direct benefit from your participation in this study. However, the information gained from this study will further help us understand human exposures to fluorochemicals. Your individual results will be communicated to you only. The study's overall findings, without any specific employee identifying information, will be communicated to all Decatur employees. 001278 3M Company EPI-0006 Page 29 of 29 COMPENSATION If you suffer injury or a medical condition that appears to be the result of participating in this study, you will be referred to another health care professional at no cost to you. In the event of a research related injury, compensation will be determined on a case by case basis by 3M. The contact for medical compensation is Jeffrey Mandel, M.D., 612-7338670, of the 3M Medical Department. CONFIDENTIALITY The overall results collected in this study may be used in publications or public presentation. Your name will not be revealed in any publication or other documents intended for publication examination. Your individual results will be communicated to you only. Your individual results will be considered confidential information and will not be disclosed to anyone outside the 3M Medical Department without your written consent. SUBJECT RIGHTS/AVAILABIUTY OF INFORMATION If you have any questions about the study now, or later, or in the event of a research related injury or emergency, contact Cathy Simpson, RN (552-6341) or Dr. Jeffrey Mandel (612-733-8670). For answers to questions about your rights in regard to this research, you may contact Dr. Larry Zobel, Chair, 3M Institutional Review Board at 612733-5181. VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL Participation in this study is voluntary. Refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You are free to withdraw from the study at any time for any reason. SUBJECT CONSENT By signing the consent form, I certify that I am at least 18 years old. I confirm that I have read this consent form, and that I have been given adequate opportunity to ask any questions I may have about this consent form or the study. I also confirm that I understand the scope of my participation in this study, and that all of my questions have been.answered to my satisfaction. I am signing this consent form voluntarily, and I desire to participate in the study. I understand that I am not waiving or releasing any of my legal rights by signing this consent form, or by participation in this study. I understand that I will receive a copy of this signed consent form. Signature Printed Name Date 001279 FINAL REPORT Epidemiology, 220-3W-05 Medical Department 3M Company St. Paul. MN 55144 Title: Fluorochemical Exposure Assessment of Decatur Chemical and Film Plant Employees Final Report Date: August 11, 1999 Study Start Date: September 3, 1998 Protocol Number: EPI-0006 IRB Approval (#98082) Exempt: Expedited: X IRB Approval Date: September 3, 1998 Study Archive Number: ARCH-021 Principal Investigator: Co-investigators: Geary W. Olsen, DVM, PhD1 Perry W. Logan, MS2 Cathy A. Simpson, RN2 Kristen J. Hansen, PhD3 Jean M. Burris, RN, MPH1 Michele M. Burlew, MS1 John C. Schumpert, MD, MPH1 Jeffrey H. Mandel, MD, MPH1 Study Director: Jeffrey H. Mandel, MD, MPH 1. 3M Medical Department, 220-3W-05, St. Paul, MN 55144-1000 2. 3M Decatur, EHS&R, P.O. Box 2206, Decatur, Alabama 35609-2206 3. 3M Environmental Laboratory, 2-3E-01, St. Paul, MN 55144-1000 001280 3M EPI-0006 Page 2 of 85 QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT TITLE OF STUDY: Fluorochemical Exposure Assessment of Decatur Chemical and Film Plant Employees The above study was examined for quality assurance in keeping with the spirit of The Guidelines for Good Epidemiology Practices for Occupational and Environmental Epidemiologic Research as published by the Chemical Manufacturers Association Epidemiology Task Group. The final report was determined to be an accurate reflection of the data obtained. The dates of Quality Assurance activities on this study are listed below. Study Initiation Date: 09/03/98 Study Completion Date: 08/11/99 TYPE OF AUDIT: Protocol, Draft Protocol Addenda, Data File, Draft Final Report Final Report DATE OF AUDIT 06/28/99 DATE FINDINGS REPORTED TO PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR AND STUDY DIRECTOR 06/28/99 DATE FINDINGS REPORTED TO 3M MANAGEMENT 06/28/99 08/09/99 08/09/99 08/09/99 Archiving: All raw data and the final report will be filed in the Occupational Medicine epidemiology archive system. Signatures (and date) of QA Audit Team %ajjJi/mv te/il/nMJ if. y vhhl 001281 3M EPI-0006 Page 3 of 85 ABSTRACT In the past, employees at the 3M Decatur chemical plant have voluntarily participated in a fluorochemical medical surveillance program. Analysis of the surveillance data has not shown significant associations between the employees' clinical chemistry and hematology tests and either total serum organic fluorine or serum PFOS (periluorooctane sulfonate) levels. However, the voluntary nature of the historical medical surveillance program did not provide for a complete understanding of the distribution of fluorochemical serum levels in the Decatur workforce. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to collect data by randomly sampling employees in the Decatur chemical plant in order to determine the distribution of employee serum fluorochemical levels according to demographics, current and longest held jobs, years worked and building locations. In addition, a random sample of the neighboring 3M Decatur film plant employee population, located at the same site, was tested to determine fluorochemical serum levels in order to characterize the differences between the two plant populations. A total of 232 employees was randomly selected for serum sampling: 186 (80%) participated in the blood collection which occurred in the Fall, 1998. An additional 77 employees requested blood testing for the determination of fluorochemical levels. Of the random sample of employees who participated, 126 were from the chemical plant and 60 from the film plant. There were 61 volunteers from chemical and 16 volunteers from film; thus, all chemical participants numbered 187 employees and all film participants numbered 76 employees. At the time of blood collection, employees responded to a twopage questionnaire that inquired about their current and longest held jobs, the buildings 001282 3M EPI-0006 Page 4 of 85 they had worked in (if chemical employees), and possible routes of oral ingestion of fluorochemicals through cigarette smoking, chewing gum, chewing tobacco and hand washing practices. Sera samples were extracted using an ion-pairing extraction procedure. The extracts were quantitatively analyzed for PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate), PFHS (perfluorohexane sulfonate), POAA (periluorooctanoic acid), PFOSAA (N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamido acetate) PFOSA (perfluorooctane sulfonate amide), M570 (N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamido acetate) and M556 (perfluorooctanesulfonamido acetate) using high-pressure liquid chromatography/electrospray tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/ESMSMS) and evaluated versus an extracted curve. PFOS, PFHS, POAA, PFOSAA and PFOSA levels were determined by Northwest Bioanalytical Laboratory. M570 and M556 levels were determined by the 3M Environmental Laboratory. The overall arithmetic means (and range) and the geometric means and ( 95% confidence interval) of the random sample of chemical employees (n = 126) for the seven fluorochemicals are presented below (in ppm): Chemical Plant Arithmetic Mean (and Range)_____ Geometric Mean (and 95% Cl) PFOS PFHS POAA PFOSAA M570 PFOSA M556 1.505 (0.091-10.600) 0.345 (0.005-1.880) 1.536 (0.021 - 6.760) 0.023 (0.001 - 0.269) 0.151 (0.008 - 0.992) 0.062 (0.0005 - 0.612) 0.052 (0.001 - 0.406) PFOS PFHS POAA PFOSAA M570 PFOSA M556 0.941 (0.787- 1.126) 0.180 (0.145 -0.223) 0.899 (0.722- 1.120) 0.008 (0.006-0.011) 0.081 (0.067 - 0.098) 0.013 (0.009 - 0.018) 0.022 (0.018-0.029) 001283 3M EPI-0006 Page 5 of 85 The overall arithmetic means (and range) and geometric means ( 95% confidence interval) of the random sample of film plant employees (n = 60) for the seven fluorochemicals are presented below: Film Plant Arithmetic Mean (and Range) Geometric Mean (and 95% Cl) PFOS 0.172 (0.015-0.946) PFOS 0.136 (0.114-0.161) PFHS 0.023 (0.001 -0.210) PFHS 0.014 (0.011-0.018) POAA 0.071 (0.006-0.298) POAA 0.049 (0.039 - 0.062) PFOSAA 0.004 (0.001 - 0.038) PFOSAA 0.003 (0.002 - 0.003) M570 0.020 (0.001 -0.454) M570 0.008 (0.006-0.011) PFOSA 85% of samples < LLOQ* PFOSA 85% of samples < LLOQ* M556_______ 0.008 (0.0001 -0.307) M556______ 0.003 (0.002-0,004) LLOQ = lower limit of quantitation for PFOSA ranged from 0.001 - 0.010 ppm. The above values showed high variability according to the employees' demographics, work history and building locations. Among the random sample (n = 126) of chemical employees, cell operators had the highest serum levels of PFOS (geometric mean = 1.970 ppm) and PFHS (geometric mean = 0.697 ppm). However, sera from chemical operators and maintenance workers had the highest levels of other fluorochemical analytes (PFOSAA, M570, PFOSA and M556) a characteristic likely due to their work in Buildings 3 and 4N with fluorochemical alcohols, amides and acrylates. For example, chemical operators had a geometric mean level of 0.131 ppm for M570 compared to 0.033 ppm for cell operators, 0.042 for mill operators and 0.079 ppm for waste operators. POAA levels were above the geometric mean of 1.000 ppm for employees with current jobs of cell operators (1.428 ppm), chemical operators (1.887 ppm), maintenance workers (1.095 ppm ), mill operators (1.266 ppm) and waste operators (1.542 ppm). Employees with the job categories of engineer/lab and secretary 001284 had the lowest serum fluorochemica! levels. 3M EPI-0006 Page 6 of 85 PFHS, and to a lesser extent PFOS, were positively associated with years worked in the chemical plant. The remaining fluorochemical analytes were not routinely associated with years worked in the chemical plant by job categories. We did not observe an association between hand-to-mouth usage or hand cleanliness (frequency of washing hands) and serum fluorochemical levels. Like their male counterparts, female chemical operators appeared to have increased PFHS levels with years worked. However, unlike their male counterparts, there was no apparent modest linear association between PFOS and years worked among female chemical operators. Whether this is due to different work practices, exposure patterns or pharmacokinetics once absorbed, remains to be determined. The sample size itself (n = 10 female chemical operators in random sample), is an important, limiting factor in the interpretation of these data. The data also indicate significantly lower serum fluorochemical levels among employees who have only worked in the film plant (i.e., defined as those employees in the random sample who have worked only in the film plant with no prior work on the D-l maker located in the film plant or previous work history in chemical. The D-l maker uses FX-1801, a methyl FOSE amide). There were significantly lower serum fluorochemical levels among these employees who have only worked in the film plant when compared to those who are current chemical plant employees. Comparing the geometric means for each fluorochemical from the random sample of chemical operators and those employees who only have worked in the film plant, we observed the following ratios (in ppm): PFOS (1.481/0.110); PFHS (0.428/0.015); POAA (1.887/0.052); PFOSAA (0.011/0.002); M570 (0.229/0.022); and M556 (0.044/0.003). Except for PFOSAA, these ratios suggest a 10-fold or greater difference between chemical operators and film plant employees who 001285 3M EPI-0006 Page 7 of 85 work several hundred yards away from Building 3. This only film plant employee group had a geometric mean value for PFOS that is approximately 3-4 times higher than the pooled geometric mean (0.029 ppm) from 64 samples obtained from 18 U.S. blood banks. Thus, we suspect that occupational exposure to PFOS does occur within the film plant although at much lower levels than among employees working at the chemical plant. Additionally employees who worked on the D-l maker have serum PFOS levels approximately 3 times higher than those employees who have never worked on the D-l maker nor have worked in the chemical plant (i.e., the only film plant employees). We did not observe an association between hand-to-mouth usage or hand cleanliness (frequency of washing hands) and serum fluorochemical levels. It is possible an association might have been masked because industrial hygiene had instituted an aggressive educational campaign several months prior to the collection of blood samples in this study; thus current practices may not be indicative of past practices. Because the half-life of PFOS is estimated to be 1000 days or more, such an association may not be discoverable with this study design. A limitation to this study design which must be considered in the interpretation of the data was our inability to more accurately quantify an employee's work history experience. Decatur work history records provide department numbers and job titles but they do not provide information regarding where someone worked (e.g., what building(s) or with what specific fluorochemicals). Self-reported work history information obtained by questionnaire was highly correlated with Decatur work history record information; nevertheless, the specificity of where someone worked and with what chemicals was not known. Because many operations are in batch mode, the likelihood of determining specificity of historical workload fluorochemical exposure among chemical operators 001286 was not possible. 3M EPI-0006 Page 8 of 85 The present study's sera fluorochemical levels, observed by job categories and building locations, strongly support the recommendations bome from recently conducted industrial hygiene assessments. These recommendations include specific engineering controls to reduce inhalation exposure, appropriate personal protective equipment to prevent overexposure and appropriate personal hygiene practices among employees to remove skin concentrations. Finally, PFOS and POAA serum levels measured in this study are similar to those that have been previously reported via past biennial medical surveillance activities. Results of previous epidemiologic studies have not associated the serum PFOS or POAA levels observed in this study population with hepatic, lipid or hormone abnormalities. 001287 INTRODUCTION 3M EPI-0006 Page 9 of 85 In the past, employees at the 3M Decatur chemical plant have voluntarily participated in a fluorochemical medical surveillance program. The surveillance program analyzed for total serum organic fluorine levels until the mid-1990's when serum perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (POAA) determination, quantifiable by high performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry, became incorporated in the biennial medical surveillance examinations. Analysis of the surveillance data has not shown significant associations between the employees' clinical chemistry and hematology tests and either total serum organic fluorine levels [Roach, 1982; Schuman, 1982] or serum PFOS levels [Olsen et al., 1999]. However, the voluntary nature of the medical surveillance program may not lend itself to an appropriate characterization of the distribution of fluorochemical serum levels as it is not based on random sampling methods. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to collect data from the necessary distribution by randomly sampling employees in the Decatur chemical plant in order to determine the distribution of employee serum fluorochemical levels according to demographics, current and longest held jobs, years worked and building locations. In addition, a random sample of the neighboring 3M Decatur film plant employee population, located at the same site, was tested to determine fluorochemical serum levels in order to characterize the differences between the two plant populations. The film plant employees have served as a comparison population in a prior health study (Mandel and Johnson, 1995) due to their (assumed) nonoccupational exposure to fluorochemicals. However, their actual serum fluorochemical levels had not been discerned. Epidemiologic studies at the Decatur plant can be more fully appreciated 001288 3M EPI-0006 Page 10 of 85 if the distributions of employee serum fluorochemical levels at both the chemical and film plants are better understood. METHODS Description of Decatur Facility The 3M Decatur site is located in Decatur, Alabama which started production in the early 1960's. The site consists of two plants, Specialty Film "film plant" and Specialty Materials "chemical plant". Both plants are in the Specialty Materials Manufacturing Division (SMMD). The chemical plant is located several hundred yards directly east of the Film Plant. The main buildings located on the site are Buildings 1, 2, 3, 5, 14, 15, 17, 19, 31, 36, 38, 40,42, 48, 49, 51, 57, 59 and 61 (see Appendix A). Buildings 14, 15 and 19 are considered film plant buildings. Buildings 1, 2, 3, 31, 38, 40, 42,48,49, 51 and 61 are considered chemical plant buildings. Building 5 is the boiler house that controls site utilities such as chilled water, plant steam, plant nitrogen and breathing air. Building 5 is located southwest of the chemical plant. Building 17 serves as the maintenance and stockroom building located just west of Building 5 servicing mainly the chemical plant. Buildings 36 and 57 are site wastewater treatment buildings located east of the chemical plant. The major production buildings in Decatur film plant are Buildings 14, 15 and 19. Polyester and non-polyester films are produced in Building 14. Maintenance, locker rooms, and dining facilities are all located in areas of Building 14. Resin used in film production is manufactured in Buildings 15 and 19. The only process in the film plant using fluorochemicals is run on the D-l film line (called the D-l maker). The process 001289 3M EPI-0006 Page 11 of 85 uses FX-1801 in the production of film used for a limited number of products. Currently, no other processes in the film plant use fluorochemicals in production. The three major products produced in the chemical plant are protective chemicals, performance chemicals, and fluoroelastomers. The three product groups are referred to as focus factories. Fluorochemicals identified in this study are used in all focus factory groups to some extent. Production for all focus factories takes place in Buildings 2, 3,4, 38, 40, 42, 49, 51 and 61. The chemical plant's main office areas, warehouse and quality control labs are located in Building 1. The chemical plant's dining facility and locker rooms are located in Building 31. Raw materials and intermediates for each product group may flow through many different production buildings before they are packaged for shipping. The flow of protective chemicals follow a path starting at Building 3 to Buildings 2 or 49 to Buildings 3, 4, 38 or 51. The protective chemicals group is the primary producer of perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride (POSF) and perfluorohexane sulfonyl fluoride (PHSF) based chemistry. Octyl mercaptan or hexyl mercaptan is reacted with chlorine and ammonium fluoride to produce octane sulfonyl fluoride (OSF) or hexane sulfonyl fluoride (HSF) in Building 3 and is referred to as the `cell feed'. The cell feed is sent to Buildings 2 and 49 where it is reacted in electrochemical cell systems to produce POSF or PHSF. POSF is the major sulfonate based fluorochemical produced at Decatur. PHSF is produced mainly for fire suppression liquids. Most of the POSF produced is piped to Building 3 where amides, alcohols, acrylates and other fluorochemical polymers are produced. These fluorochemical polymers are then used in all production buildings to produce intermediates and finished goods. 001290 3M EPI-0006 Page 12 of 85 The performance chemicals are mostly made up of inert liquids and fire suppression liquids. The inert liquids follow a path starting at Buildings 2 or 49 to Buildings 40 or 42. Inert liquids consist of mostly perfluoronated alkanes and do not contain sulfonate or carboxylic acid compounds. Fire suppression liquids are primarily based on sulfonate chemistries starting with POSF and PHSF. Fire suppression products are made in Building 3 and packaged in Building 4. Fluorochemicals are used in the production of fluoroelastomer products. The first part of the fluoroelastomers is called latex, which is produced in Buildings 4, 38 and 51. The latex is then coagulated, washed and milled in Buildings 4 and 61. POSF based compounds are the primary fluorochemicals of interest used in the majority of fluoroelastomer products. POAA is also used in a limited number of fluoroelastomer product runs. POAA is used in the production of latex that is eventually coagulated, washed, and milled in Buildings 4 and 61. This POAA containing product is run infrequently, only several times per year. POAA is also a by-product within the electrolytic cells and is carried through up to product. It is believed to be a result o f increased oxidation within the cells. POAA was produced in Building 2 and subsequently worked up in Building 3 more than 20 years ago and had not been produced in Decatur since the time of this study. POAA production is expected to resume in Buildings 2 and 49 in the near future. 001291 Sample Size Determination 3M EPI-0006 Page 13 of 85 Three critical factors were considered to decide the sample size for this study. First, it was important that a sample be randomly chosen from the employee populations of both the chemical and film plants. Second, the sample size was driven by the need to provide confidence that the exposure in the film plant is small relative to that of the chemical plant. Third, the sample size had to adequately characterize the exposure levels within the chemical plant workplace. In addition, all employees in the chemical and film plant had to be offered the opportunity to know their fluorochemical levels via blood testing, although they may not be part of the random sample. The random sample size in this study of more than 200 subjects was based on: 1) the lower 95% confidence bound of the hypothesized mean difference between the serum fluorochemical levels of the chemical plant; and 2) to allow for adequate characterization of serum fluorochemical differences by job and building within the chemical plant (see study protocol for details). There was an added degree of uncertainty in estimating sample size because approximately 10 percent of the film plant employees may have had prior work experience in the chemical plant. Also, an unknown number of film plant workers had worked on the D-l maker where a PFOS-based fluorochemical (FX 1801, a methyl FOSE amide) has been used. The random sample was chosen by the following methods: a) all full-time current chemical and film plant employees were identified via a current plant roster that listed departments and supervisors; b) using a random number generator algorithm, a sample of employees was chosen which was proportionate to the number of employees who worked in the various chemical departments, auto and chemical markets group, Decatur EHS&R, Dyneon, and the film plant. We included in the random sample all identified Decatur 001292 3M EPI-0006 Page 14 of 85 site employees who were assigned to the wastewater treatment plant (Buildings 36 and 57). Altogether, there were 232 employees randomly chosen to participate in the study (Table 1). A total of 186 (80%) participated and 46 (20%) refused. The film plant random sample had the lowest participation rate (71%). In addition to the 186 random sample participants, there were 77 employees from the chemical (n = 61) and film (n = 16) plants who requested their serum be tested for fluorochemical levels. Hereafter, these individuals will be called the "volunteers." Employee Study Participation Study participation required the following: 1) a signed consent form by the employee; 2) a written response to a brief questionnaire (Appendix B) that inquired about current and past work history along with the frequency of hand washing and use of gum, chew (tobacco) and cigarette habits of the employee while at work; and 3) a venipuncture with the collection of two vials of blood (approximately 20 cc) for the determination of the seven fluorochemicals. The study protocol was approved by the 3M Institutional Review Board (IRB). Each randomly chosen employee (film and chemical) received a letter of invitation to participate that was jointly signed by the plant manager (Mr. Jim King) and the 3M Medical Department director (Dr. Larry Zobel). There was plant-wide communication which described the purpose of this study and encouraged employee participation. All study participants, who were either randomly chosen or who volunteered, were informed of their own individual results by a letter sent to them from the 3M Medical Department in July, 1999. Aggregate results of the study were also communicated at that time to the employees. 001293 3M EPI-0006 Page 15 of 85 Fluorochemical Analyses All blood was collected in the months of October and November, 1998 at the Decatur plant by MedAccess (an occupational health clinic located in Decatur, Alabama) under the direction of Cathy Simpson, RN who centrifuged the blood to obtain the serum and then shipped the samples to the 3M Medical Department (St. Paul, MN). Split samples were catalogued by Diane Madsen and Jean Burris and then sent to either Northwest Bioanalytical (Dr. David Vollmer) for determination of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctane sulfonate amide (PFOSA), perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHS), perfluorooctanoic acid (POAA) and N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamido acetate (PFOSAA) or to 3M Environmental Laboratory (Dr. Kris Hansen) for determination of N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamido acetate (M570) and perfluorooctanesulfonamido acetate (M556). In both laboratories, sera samples were extracted using an ion-pairing extraction procedure. The extracts were quantitatively analyzed for PFOS, PFHS, POAA, PFOSAA, PFOSA, M570 and M556 using high-pressure liquid chromatography/electrospray tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/ESMSMS) and evaluated versus an extracted curve. There were minor differences between the analytical methods used at Northwest Bioanalytical and 3M Environmental Laboratory. Most notably, Northwest Bioanalytical evaluated analyte levels versus a curve extracted from human sera. Endogenous levels of certain fluorochemicals were determined in the standard matrix and additional fluroochemical was spiked into the matrix. The total amount of each specific fluorochemical (endogenous + spiked) was used to construct an extracted standard curve. For the analysis conducted at the 3M Environmental 001294 3M EPI-0006 Page 16 of 85 Laboratory, the difficulties presented by the endogenous levels of fluorochemical in samples of "blank" test matrix were circumvented by utilizing rabbit sera as a surrogate matrix. Previous research had shown that rabbit sera contains the lowest level of endogenous fluorochemicals when compared to sera from bovine, rat, monkey and human. As a quality control check, the 3M Environmental Laboratory screened PFOS levels in approximately 10% of the sera analyzed at Northwest Bioanalytical. While most of the results agreed to within 25%, 14 of the 40 samples checked showed lower (> 25%) values when analyzed at 3M. It is expected that these discrepancies are due to differences in curve slope and intercepts arising from the analytical differences described above. Given that Northwest Bioanalytical satisfactorily completed a method validation for PFOS using human sera and given that most values were in close agreement with those obtained by the 3M Environmental Laboratory using a rabbit sera curve, data from both laboratories were considered accurate to within the parameters defined by their methods. Details of both laboratories' methods and final reports are reported elsewhere [Vollmer, 1999; Hansen, 1999]. Data Analysis Each employee's questionnaire data and computerized work history records were reviewed to determine whether the employee was: a) a current chemical employee (regardless of any work experience in the film plant); b) a film plant employee with no history in chemical; or c) a film plant employee with prior history in chemical. Employees who were considered Decatur 'site' employees (e.g., safety, industrial 001295 3M EPI-0006 Page 17 of 85 hygiene) and who stated they currently worked in one or more chemical buildings were considered to be chemical employees in the data analyses. Employees were asked to provide their current and longest-held job. A review of these job titles by an industrial hygienist (PWL), epidemiologists (GWO, JMB) and occupational health nurse (CAS) categorized the entries into eight job classifications for the chemical plant: cell operators, chemical operators, engineers/laboratory, maintenance, mill operators, secretaries, supervisors/management and waste operators. Film plant current jobs (and longest held jobs) were categorized into four job classifications: engineers/laboratory, film processors, maintenance and administrative. These classifications were done prior to any data analyses. The individual's usual job assignment when he/she worked overtime was not analyzed as most persons reported this was the same as their current (or longest held) job. Employees were asked on the study questionnaire to indicate the number of years they have worked in chemical. This information correlated with a review of records from the epidemiology unit's Decatur work history database for those employees with 7000 level department codes; thus these self-reported data were used to assess years worked in chemical. On the other hand, years worked in film were calculated from the epidemiology unit's Decatur work history database because this information was not requested on the study questionnaire. Chemical employees who had worked previously in the film plant were identified and classified as to their time of service in the film plant (< 1980, 1980-1989 and 1990-1998). Age was calculated from the employee's date of birth from the epidemiology unit's Decatur work history database. Body mass index (kg/m2) was calculated based on the information provided by the employee on the questionnaire. An index of hand-tomouth contact was calculated based on whether the person smoked cigarettes, chewed 001296 3M EPI-0006 Page 18 of 85 tobacco or chewed gum. An index of hand washing was based on whether or not the employee said they always washed their hands before eating while at work. Through the use of SAS and JMP and employing standard statistical techniques (student's t test, chi square, ANOVA, single and multivariable regression using linear and nonlinear analyses), data analyses concentrated on the following issues: 1) compare responders and nonresponders in the random sample by their demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, years worked); 2) compare mean serum fluorochemical levels within the chemical plant by a) employee demographics, b) self-reported work history data based from the study questionnaire including current job, longest-held job, years worked in chemical and in which chemical buildings; c) work history information supplemented with data from the 3M epidemiology unit's computerized comprehensive work history record database for the Decatur site, and d) personal habits (also identified on the study questionnaire) that were hypothesized to increase the likelihood of oral ingestion of fluorochemicals (e.g., hand washing, cigarette smoking, chewing tobacco and chewing gum); and 3) likewise, compare mean serum fluorochemical levels within the film plant by similar factors. To prevent misclassification of potential workplace exposure experience to fluorochemicals within the film plant, we analyzed samples from film plant employees according to those who have and have never worked in the chemical plant as well as those who were identified as having worked on the D-l maker located in the film plant. Film plant employees who had never worked on the D-l maker nor ever worked in chemical are hereafter referred to as "only film plant employees." Because the serum distributions for PFOS, PFHS, POAA, PFOSAA, M570, PFOSA and M556 appeared log normally distributed (a skewed distribution), natural log transformations of the fluorochemicals were performed to calculate geometric means 001297 3M EPI-0006 Page 19 of 85 (e(sumlnx)/n) and statistical calculations regarding central tendency were primarily based on the geometric mean. The random variable X is said to have a log normal distribution if log X is normally distributed, that is, if X is of the form eYwhere Y is normal (i.e., the normal bell shaped curve). The pertinent properties of a log normal distribution can then be derived from properties of the normal distribution. The mean and variance are of the normally distributed Y, that is, of log X. The log normal distribution finds applications in a wide variety of fields including exposure assessments in nature (whether of humans, mammals, etc). Provided in Appendices C and D are the histograms of the seven fluorochemicals as measured for employees in the chemical and film plants, respectively, using statistics derived from the normal distribution along with the natural log transformation of the distribution. The Shapiro-Wilk W test suggests the necessity of the log transformation. Measures of central tendency routinely presented throughout this report will include the arithmetic mean and range, and the geometric mean and associated 95% confidence interval. Comparisons of geometric means were conducted using the student's t test with statistical significance considered at p < .05. All fluorochemical measurements were reported in parts per million (ppm) to the third decimal point. For statistical purposes, serum fluorochemical values that were less than the lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ) were assumed the midpoint between zero and the LLOQ. Of the total number (n = 186) of employees considered to be currently working in chemical who participated in the study (126 from the random sample and 60 volunteers), the following numbers (in parentheses with percentage) had reported LLOQ's by the measured fluorochemical: PFOS (1, 0.5%); PFHS (1, 0.5%); POAA (0, 0%); PFOSAA (49, 26%); M570 (0, 0%); PFOSA (36, 19%); and M556 (8, 4%). Of the 001298 3M EPI-0006 Page 20 of 85 total number (n = 76) of employees considered to be current film plant (60 in the random sample and 16 volunteers), the following numbers (in parentheses) had reported LLOQ's by the measured fluorochemical: PFOS (1, 1%); PFHS (2, 2%); POAA (0, 0%); PFOSAA (29, 38%); M570 (0, 0%); PFOSA (65, 86%) and M556 (32, 42%). We chose not to analyze PFOSA among the film plant employees because 85% of them had serum PFOSA measured at less than LLOQ which resulted in minimum variability for statistical considerations. The LLOQ for PFOSA ranged, between analyses, from 0.001 to 0.010 ppm. Analyses focused on the random sample but aggregate data analyses were also conducted for all participants (random sample and volunteers) stratified by the two plants. RESULTS Comparison of random sample responders and nonresponders Responders (n = 186) and nonresponders (n = 46) from the random sample were compared by age, gender and years worked and found to be alike. Among the chemical random sample, the average age was 42 years compared to 43 for nonresponders. Responders and nonresponders have worked, on average, 16 years. There was a similar 5 to 1 ratio of male to female employees for the responders and nonresponders among chemical employees. Film plant employees who responded were, on average, 46 years of age, had worked 19 years and the ratio of male to female was 5 to 1. Nonresponders were 48 years of age, had worked 25 years and had a 7 to 1 male to female ratio. Thus, nonresponders in the film plant random sample were slightly older, worked longer and a greater percentage were males. 001299 3M EP1-0006 Page 21 of 85 Overall Findings The arithmetic mean (and range) of the random sample as well as the geometric mean and (95% confidence interval) of chemical employees (n = 126) for the seven fluorochemicals are presented below (in ppm): Chemical Plant Arithmetic Mean (and Range)_____ Geometric Mean (and 95% Cl) PFOS PFHS POAA PFOSAA M570 PFOSA M556 1.505 (0.091-10.600) 0.345 (0.005-1.880) 1.536 (0.021 -6.760) 0.023 ( 0.001 - 0.269) 0.151 (0.008 - 0.992) 0.062 (0.0005 - 0.612) 0.052 (0.001 -0.406) PFOS PFHS POAA PFOSAA M570 PFOSA M556 0.941 (0.787- 1.126) 0.180 (0.145 -0.223) 0.899 (0.722- 1.122) 0.008 (0.006-0.011) 0.081 (0.067 - 0.098) 0.013 (0.009-0.018) 0.022 (0.018-0.029) The arithmetic mean (and range) of the random sample as well as the geometric mean and (95% confidence interval) of the film plant employees (n = 60) for the six fluorochemicals are presented below: Film Plant Arithmetic Mean (and Range) Geometric Mean (and 95% Cl) PFOS 0.172 (0.015-0.946) PFOS 0.136 (0.114-0.161) PFHS 0.023 (0.001 -0.210) PFHS 0.014 (0.011-0.018) POAA 0.071 (0.006-0.298) POAA 0.049 (0.039-0.062) PFOSAA 0.004 (0.001 -0.038) PFOSAA 0.003 (0.002-0.003) M570 0.020 (0.001 -0.454) M570 0.008 (0.006-0.011) PFOSA 85% of samples < LLOQ* PFOSA 85% of samples < LLOQ* M556_______ 0,008 (0.0001 - 0.307) M556 0.003 (0.002-0.004) LLOQ = lower limit of quantitation for PFOSA ranged from 0.001 - 0.010 ppm. Because the above values may be highly variable by employees' demographics, work history and personal habits, subsequent analyses will focus on each plant separately. 001300 3M EPI-0006 Page 22 of 85 Tables 1-21 provide the results from the chemical plant. Tables 22 - 29 provide the results from the film plant. Chemical Plant Provided in tables 2 and 3 are the demographic characteristics by the number of chemical employees (and percent) from the random sample (n = 126), volunteers (n = 60) and all chemical participants (both random sample and volunteer, n = 186). The distribution of demographic characteristics between the random sample and volunteers were comparable although the random sample had a higher percentage of chemical operators (37%) than did the volunteers (28%). The mean, median, range and geometric mean of the random sample, volunteers and all chemical participants, is provided in Table 4 for the seven fluorochemicals. The range of PFOS was from 0.091 -10.600 ppm. Although the geometric means were consistently higher in the random sample than volunteers, only with PFOSA did the geometric mean differ significantly between the random sample (0.013 ppm) and the volunteers (0.006 ppm). It should also be noted that among the random sample, five employees had serum PFOS levels > 5 ppm compared to none among the volunteers. Because the demographic characteristics and geometric means did not substantially differ between the random sample and volunteers, subsequent tables will report on either the random sample and/or all chemical participants. The volunteers will not be presented separately. Presented in Table 5 are the demographic characteristics of the random sample of chemical employees by current job category (cell operator, chemical operator, engineer/lab, maintenance, mill operator, secretary, supervisor/management and waste 001301 3M EPI-0006 Page 23 of 85 operator). Supervisors/management (mgmt) and waste operators were the oldest with mill operators the youngest. Mill operators have worked considerably less years, on average, than all other job categories. This is to be expected since mill operator is an entry level position for new employees. The number (and proportion) of female employees were similar between the chemical operators and the engineer/lab group. Provided in table 6 is the mean, median and geometric mean for each of the seven fluorochemical levels by gender, hand-to-mouth contact, wash hands and whether the individual had worked only in the chemical plant. Geometric mean levels for males were significantly higher than females for PFOS, PFHS, POAA and M570. We did not observe, as hypothesized, that hand-to-mouth contact (via use of cigarettes, chewing tobacco or chewing gum) and less frequent hand washing resulted in higher fluorochemical serum levels. Also, having worked only in chemical did not result in higher serum fluorochemical levels. We did observe that the further back in time that chemical employees worked in the film plant, the larger their geometric mean values were, as measured in this study. For example, the geometric mean values for chemical employees who last worked in the film plant prior to 1980, between 1980-1989,19901998 and never worked in the film plant were 1.656 ppm, 1.551 ppm, 0.786 ppm and 0.700 ppm, respectively. Of course, this is also a reflection of the number of years worked in the chemical plant (to be presented later in this section). That is, the employees who worked in the film plant prior to 1980 had subsequently the longest continuous work history in chemical since 1980. Fluorochemical levels by current job category are presented in Table 7. Several observations were noteworthy. First, the distribution of high-to-low geometric mean values varies by current job categories. Cell operators have the highest geometric mean 001302 3M EPI-0006 Page 24 of 85 level of PFOS. The next group are the chemical operators, maintenance and waste operators. Supervisor/mgmt is next, followed by the group consisting of mill operators, engineer/lab and secretary. For PFHS, cell operators have the highest geometric mean level. The next highest group appears to be chemical operators, waste operators, supervisor/mgmt and maintenance. For POAA, chemical operators appear to have the highest levels followed by the group consisting of cell operators, maintenance, mill operators and waste operators. Chemical operators and maintenance have significantly higher levels of M570 than all other current job categories. Chemical operators, maintenance and mill operators have the highest geometric mean values for PFOSAA. PFOSA and M556 values were significantly higher for chemical operators than for most other job categories. Fluorochemical ratios (PFOS/PFHS, PFOS/POAA, PFOS/(PFOSSA+M570+PFOSA+M556), M570/M556, PFOSAA/M556 and PFOSA/M556) are presented by current job category in Table 8. The cell operators had the lowest PFOS/PFHS ratio and the mill operators had the lowest PFOS/POAA ratio. The largest PFOS/metabolite ratio was for the cell operators. Tables 9-11 are identical to Tables 7-9, respectively, except that the employees' longest job is analyzed instead of the current job category. Cell operators are not included as there was only one cell operator who stated this was his longest job held. The highest PFOS, PFHS and POAA levels were observed among chemical operators. Maintenance and chemical operators had higher M570 and PFOSAA levels. Overall, results did not vary substantially between current job and longest held job. Table 12 is restricted to only those chemical employees who stated on the questionnaire that they currently work in just one location (building). Because building 001303 3M EPI-0006 Page 25 of 85 location is synonymous with job category for cell operators, Buildings 2/49 had the highest PFOS and PFHS levels. Building 3 and Building 4N represented the areas with the highest POAA levels although only one building, Building 1, had substantially lower POAA levels when compared to the other locations. M570, PFOSAA and M556 levels were highest in Building 3. Buildings 3 and 4MX (MX = mixer/extruder area) appeared to have comparable levels of PFOSA. Among the 5 employees who only worked in Building 4N, there was a wide range of PFOSA levels. Because employees may currently work in only one building but have had a past history of working in several buildings, we further restricted the analyses to only those employees who said they have only worked in one building throughout their employment. This restricted the number of subjects to just 21 individuals (17% of the random sample) with representation in these Buildings: 1, 3 and 4MX. Table 13 shows that PFOS levels were more than 5 times higher in the sera of Building 3 workers than in the sera of Building 1 or Building 4MX workers. PFHS levels were almost 10 fold higher. POAA levels were twice as high in sera of Building 3 workers compared to Building 4MX workers and more than 15 times higher than Building 1 workers. M570 and M556 levels were 5 times higher in Building 3 workers than Buildings 1 or 4MX. PFOSAA and PFOSA levels were comparable between Building 3 and Building 4MX workers and lowest in Building 1. Tables 14 through 21 provide similar data analyses as the previous tables but now represent the 187 total (random sample and volunteers) chemical participants. There were no substantial differences between the analyses of the random sample and of all chemical participants. For example, among all chemical participants, mill operators were the youngest employees (Tables 14, 17); most female employees were either in the 001304 3M EPI-0006 Page 26 of 85 current and longest job category of chemical operators or engineer/lab (excluding secretary) (Tables 15, 18); cell operators had the highest PFOS and PFHS serum levels and engineer/lab, secretary and mill operators had the lowest PFOS and PFHS serum levels (Tables 16, 19); and chemical operators and maintenance workers had the highest levels of M570 and tended to also have the highest serum levels of PFOSAA, PFOSA and M556. Fluorochemical levels stratified by where employees only currently work (Table 20), or have only ever worked (Table 21), were also comparable with the results from the random sample. All chemical participants who have only worked in Building 1 had lower fluorochemical levels than Building 3 workers for all seven fluorochemicals (Table 21). Building 1 workers had lower PFOS, POAA, PFOSAA and PFOSA levels than Building 4MX employees. PFHS, M556 and M570 levels were similar in Building 1 workers and Building 4MX workers. A series of multivariable analyses (data not shown) examining each fluorochemical by several independent variables (e.g., age, body mass index, gender, current job, longest-held job, whether employed only in the chemical plant, years worked in the chemical plant) suggested there may be up to three important explanatory variables. These were current (or longest) job, years worked within the chemical plant and gender. To better visualize the influence of years worked within chemical on serum fluorochemical levels, we stratified the analyses by current job categories. In other words, the dependent variable (i.e., each specific fluorochemical) was regressed on years worked in chemical for each separate job category. These linear regression analyses employed the untransformed as well as transformed (natural log) dependent variable. Analyses were conducted for the random sample (n = 126) as well as for all chemical 001305 3M EPI-0006 Page 27 of 85 participants (n = 187). Presented in Appendix E are the analyses for each fluorochemical for the random sample (n = 126) and then separately for chemical operators, engineer/lab, maintenance, mill operators and supervisors/mgmt. Cell operators and secretaries are not presented because of their insufficient population. From the scatterplots and models presented in Appendix E, the following were observed. (Note: in Appendices fluorochemicals are presented in the following order PFOS, PFHS, POAA, PFOSAA, M570, PFOSA and M556. For the scatterplots, upper and lower 95% confidence curves are provided of the fitted line. First, for the entire random sample, only the PFHS model fit the data well with 22 percent of the variation of PFHS explained by an increase in years worked in chemical. PFOS levels increased modestly with years worked in chemical although the variance explained remained small (r2= .10). Although intercepts may have been significant for other fluorochemical models for the entire random sample, the variance explained was consistently quite small (i.e., less than 3 percent); thus such models have minimum prediction. Among chemical operators the most significant observation was the finding of a linear increase of PFHS levels with increasing years worked in chemical. Thirty-four percent of the variation in PFHS was explained. There were weaker positive linear associations between POAA or PFOS and years worked in chemical. On the other hand, there appeared to be a suggestion that the highest levels of the fluorochemical analytes (PFOSAA, M570, PFOSA and M556) were most often observed among chemical operators with just one or two years of experience. Among the engineer/lab group, there was a weak association between serum PFOS levels and years worked in chemical. The strongest association observed among maintenance workers was the linear increase of PFHS levels with years worked in chemical. Like the chemical operators, a significant amount of variation was 001306 3M EPI-0006 Page 28 of 85 explained (26 percent) although the data were sparse. Among the supervisor/mgmt group, PFOS, PFHS and POAA increased with years worked in chemical. Approximately 15 percent of the variation was explained in each model. Model fit was poor for the mill operators because all but two had worked for 5 years or less; thus only scatterplots are presented (not regression models). The natural log transformations are presented in Appendix F for all chemical employees (n = 126) in the random sample as well as for the two current job categories with the most numbers (chemical operators and engineer/lab). For the entire random sample, a weak association (r2= .08) is observed for PFOS and years worked in chemical and a stronger association (r2= .23) for PFHS. For chemical operators the strongest association (r2= .34) is with PFHS and years worked in chemical. Although the latter association was not observed among the engineer/lab category with the nontransformed variable (see Appendix E), the natural log transformation of PFHS was significantly associated (r2= .19) with years worked in chemical (see Appendix F). Presented in Appendix G are similar scatterplots and regression models for all chemical participants by current job category. There remained a positive association between PFHS or PFOS serum levels and years worked in chemical, with the stronger of these two associations for PFHS. Because of more subjects, scatterplots are also now shown for cell operators. These plots suggest, again, an increase in PFOS, PFHS and now also POAA levels among current cell operators with years worked in chemical. Among chemical operators the strongest association remained with PFHS, with weaker linear associations observed for PFOS and POAA with years worked in chemical. Among the engineer/lab group, there remained a positive linear association between either PFHS or PFOS with years worked in chemical. There were positive linear 001307 3M EPI-0006 Page 29 of 85 associations for PFOS, PFHS and POAA with years worked in chemical among both the maintenance and supervisor/mgmt groups. Too few mill operators with 5 or more work years in chemical were sampled to conduct a meaningful analysis. The scatterplot data do show a wide range of serum POAA levels among mill operators with just one year of work experience in chemical. The scatterplots in Appendix H represent the log transformations for all chemical participants and the two most numerous job categories: chemical operators and engineer/lab. Again, the scatterplots suggest a consistently strong positive association between serum PFHS levels and years worked in chemical and a lesser association with PFOS and years worked in chemical. Presented earlier in Table 6 was the observation that serum fluorochemical levels were lower among female workers. Whether this was due to a smaller proportion of female workers in job categories where exposure would be the highest, younger female workers and/or female employees with less work experience in chemical remained to be resolved. To address this issue we focused on those two job categories that had the most female subjects within the random sample as well as all chemical participants: chemical operators and the engineer/lab group. Presented in Tables 22 and 23, by gender, are the demographic characteristics and serum fluorochemical levels for the random sample of chemical operators and the engineer/lab group. Female employees had significantly lower geometric mean serum levels of PFOS, PFHS and POAA. Multivariable analyses of chemical operators of each fluorochemical level regressed on gender, years worked in chemical and with and without age are presented in Appendix I for the random sample. For purposes of brevity, only the transformed (natural log) dependent models are presented. Gender appeared to be the best predictor of PFOS level (i.e., lower levels 001308 3M EPI-0006 Page 30 of 85 among female chemical operators) with years worked in chemical not significantly associated with PFOS. Gender was also significantly associated with POAA levels (lower POAA levels among female workers) adjusting for years worked in chemical and age. Both gender and years worked in chemical appeared to be important predictors of PFHS levels among chemical operators. Among the random sample of engineer/lab workers, gender was the most important predictor of PFOS, PFHS, POAA and PFOSAA levels after adjusting for years worked in chemical and age (Appendix J). Data for chemical operators and the engineer/lab group from the all chemical participants showed comparable results (Appendices K and L). To further clarify this issue, regression analyses were stratified by gender as well as by job category. With male chemical operators as well as with the male engineer/lab group, there was a consistent association of increasing levels of PFOS and PFHS (and POAA for chemical operators only) with increasing years worked, at least for the first several years of work. Scatterplots are found in Appendix M. More questionable is whether such an association remains linear or is polynomial (quadratic) over time. Among female chemical operators the only association observed was for PFHS and years worked. Scatterplots are found in Appendix N. Neither PFOS or POAA levels appeared to increase with years worked in chemical among female chemical operators. The data for the female engineer/lab group are difficult to interpret since 6 of the 9 individuals had less than 5 years of work in chemical. Use of an interaction term (gender x years worked in chemical) in multivariable models was not an important predictor of fluorochemical levels. 001309 Film Plant 3M EPI-0006 Page 31 of 85 Altogether there were 60 current employees who responded to the film plant random sampling. A total of 36 employees had worked only in the film plant (i.e., 'only in the film plant' refers to film plant workers with no known experience on the D-l maker or have had no previous work experience in the chemical plant), 6 film plant employees were known to have worked on the D-l maker and 18 employees had worked, at some time previously, in the chemical plant but were not on the D-l maker (Table 24). For all film participants (n = 76, random sample and volunteers), a total of 49 had worked only in the film plant, 7 were known to have worked on the D-l maker and 20 had worked, at some time previously, in the chemical plant. Among the 60 employees of the random sample, there were no substantial demographic differences (Table 25) between the only film, the D-l maker and prior chemical history groups. However, there were significant differences in serum fluorochemical levels among these three groups of film plant workers. Those employees who have only worked in the film plant (but not on D-l maker or previous chemical plant history) had significantly lower mean PFOS levels (Table 26). The geometric mean of PFOS for only film plant workers was 0.110 ppm (95% Cl 0.094-0.129) compared to 0.289 ppm (95% Cl 0.159-0.527) for employees known to have worked on the D-l maker and the geometric mean was 0.178 ppm (0.137-0.233) for film plant employees with prior history in chemical. A similar significant association, albeit at a lower ppm level, was observed for POAA. The only film plant employees had significantly lower PFHS levels when compared to film plant workers with a previous history in chemical; their PFHS levels were nonsignificantly lower than those who worked on the D-l maker. There were no significant differences in sera levels of the remaining fluorochemical 001310 3M EPI-0006 Page 32 of 85 levels among the three groups of film employees. Interestingly, all film plant workers with a previous history of having worked in the chemical plant had M556 values that were below the LLOQ. We do note that the D-l maker group had comparable levels of M570 to the only film or film with previous history in chemical groups (see Table 26). We had hypothesized the D-l maker group may have had higher levels because of their use of methyl FOSE amide which may metabolize to the analyte M570. Provided in Table 27 are ratios of fluorochemicals. The median ratios were comparable for these groups of film plant workers in the random sample. Restricting the analyses to film employees with no D-l maker or chemical plant experience, there were no significant differences by age for the four current job categories analyzed: engineer/lab, film processor, maintenance and administrative (Table 28) . Although their serum levels were substantially below their counterparts in chemical, maintenance employees working in the film plant had significantly higher PFOS, POAA and M570 levels than the engineer/lab group within the film plant (Table 29) . Engineer/lab, film processors and administrative workers had comparable fluorochemical serum levels. Median fluorochemical ratios were comparable among these job categories of the random sample of film plant workers (Table 30). Similar findings were observed when all film plant participants were analyzed for demographics and serum fluorochemical levels (Tables 31-33). Located in Appendix O are scatterplots of the only film group for each fluorochemical regressed on years worked in film. Because maintenance workers had higher levels, on average, than the other three job groups among the only film employees, they are numbered on the graphs. From these analyses there is some suggestion that PFOS and POAA levels may increase within the first few years of working at the Decatur 001311 3M EPI-0006 Page 33 of 85 film plant and then subsequently plateau. However, unlike chemical workers, there is no linear (or quadratic) association observed for PFHS. The remaining fluorochemicals showed no association with years worked in film. DISCUSSION The goal of this research effort was to quantify, based on random sampling, the relationship of employee serum levels of seven fluorochemicals at the Decatur chemical and film plants. In that regard, the data collected and analyzed present a convincing picture of significantly lower serum fluorochemical levels among employees who have only worked in the film plant when compared to those who are current chemical plant employees. For example, comparing the geometric means for each fluorochemical between chemical operators and those employees who only have worked in film, we observed the following ratios: PFOS (1.481/0.110); PFHS (0.428/0.015); POAA (1.887/0.052); PFOSAA (0.011/0.002); M570 (0.229/0.022); and M556 (0.044/0.003). These ratios, except for PFOSAA, suggest a 10-fold or greater difference between chemical operators and film plant employees who work several hundred yards away from Building 3. These only film plant workers appear to have a geometric mean value for PFOS that is approximately 3-4 times higher than the pooled geometric mean (0.029 ppm) from 64 samples obtained from 18 U.S. blood banks; thus, we suspect that occupational exposure to PFOS occurs within the film plant although at much lower levels than among employees working at the chemical plant. Among film plant employees we also established the fact that workers on the D-l maker have serum PFOS levels approximately 3 times higher than those who have never 001312 3M EPI-0006 Page 34 of 85 worked on the D-l maker nor have worked in the chemical plant. Unexplained is the POAA levels of these workers on the D-l maker as well as the levels observed among other film plant employees. We confirmed several hypotheses for the chemical plant employees. First, cell operators have the highest serum levels of PFOS and PFHS although their serum levels for other fluorochemical analytes were similar to other chemical employees who were involved with the chemical reactors (i.e., chemical operators and maintenance workers). Second, chemical operators and maintenance workers had comparable serum fluorochemical levels. Besides their higher levels of PFOS and PFHS, they both had significantly higher levels of M570 (the methyl FOSE alcohol metabolite) and to a lesser degree to PFOSAA which is the ethyl FOSE alcohol metabolite (as well as an FC product itself, FC-129). Chemical operators, but not maintenance workers, had higher levels of PFOSA. Both chemical operators and maintenance workers had moderately higher levels of M556 than the other job categories. These data suggest that, beyond general plantbased environmental exposure to POSF and PHSF (which we assume is primarily through inhalation and conversion to PFOS and PFHS, respectively), the chemical operators and maintenance workers have higher serum levels as a result of their occupational exposure to the fluorochemical products. These occupational exposures may be from the FC alcohols, FC amides, and FC acrylates. Because these fluorochemicals have much lower vapor pressure than POSF and PHSF, these data may indicate that the exposure to these chemical products within the chemical plant is relatively limited to within Building 3 and Building 4N. Third, waste operators were comparable to chemical operators for serum levels of PFOS and PFHS but, like the cell operators, did not have higher levels of the fluorochemical analytes. Fourth, mill 001313 3M EPI-0006 Page 35 of 85 operators were generally much younger employees and their highest fluorochemical serum level was to POAA. Yet, the mill operators'POAA levels were lower than those of cell operators, chemical operators and maintenance workers. This suggests there is plant-based exposure of POAA well beyond the Building 4 area which may be due to the fact that POAA is a by-product of the electrolytic cell production. Finally, the data support the hypothesis that those individuals (e.g., engineers and secretaries) who are much less likely to have routine occupational exposure within the chemical plant, do, indeed have lower serum fluorochemical levels. Employees who have only worked in Building 1 which is immediately across the walkway from Building 3, have serum fluorochemical levels that range between 7 (PFOS, PFHS) and 15 times (PFOSAA) lower than employees who have only worked in Building 3. Our analyses of fluorochemical levels in serum from randomly selected employees strengthen the recommendations that were recently made in a Decatur industrial hygiene assessment analysis [Logan, 1998]. There is a strong correlation between the higher employee serum levels in the present study and air, surface and personal monitoring measurements which occurred during the industrial hygiene assessment. In the industrial hygiene assessment, Building 3 had the highest average airborne total fluorochemical levels with each value derived from the total mass of detected target analytes in each sample (POSF, PHSF, FC amides, FC alcohols, FC acrylates) (see below): Bids No. 1 3 4 Outside air *mg/m3 Results of Fluorochemical Tube Air Samples No. Samples Average* Low* High* 19 0.0145 0.000 0.0601 66 1.6884 0.0070 38.0583 10 0.1269 0.0047 0.5216 3 0.0861 0.580 0.1247 001314 3M EPI-0006 Page 36 of 85 Surface wipe sampling was also conducted throughout the chemical plant (Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 17, 38, 49, 51 and 57). Sample results indicated that fluorochemicals were found in nearly all samples with large variations in concentration. Building 3 had the highest surface fluorochemical contamination with the average surface concentration greater than 100 ug/100cm2. Also, methyl FOSE alcohol was the largest contributor of fluorochemicals found throughout surface wipes in Building 3. Hand-wipe samplings indicated that employees who had washed their hands had very low levels of fluorochemicals detected. Methyl FOSE alcohol and POAA were the compounds found most often on employees' hands. Thus, the present study's sera fluorochemical levels, observed by job categories and building locations, strongly support the recommendations borne from industrial hygiene assessments. These recommendations include specific engineering controls to reduce inhalation exposure, appropriate personal protective equipment to prevent overexposure and appropriate personal hygiene practices among employees to remove skin concentrations. For the first time we have shown a relationship between serum PFHS levels and the number of years worked in chemical. This finding was observed across various current job categories within chemical which suggests PHSF, due to its high vapor pressure, is likely present throughout the chemical plant premises. The pharmacokinetics of PFHS are unknown, although due to the shorter chain length, we suspect the biological half-life may be less than PFOS. We observed only a modest association between years worked in the chemical plant and serum PFOS, and to a lesser extent POAA, levels. These associations appear to be more evident among employees within their first five years as demonstrated by significant quadratic associations found with both male chemical operators and 001315 engineers/laboratory personnel. 3M EPI-0006 Page 37 of 85 Like their male counterparts, female chemical operators appear to have increased PFHS levels with years worked. However, unlike their male counterparts, there was no apparent linear association between PFOS and years worked. Whether this is due to different work practices, exposure patterns or pharmacokinetics once absorbed, remains to be determined. Gender-related differences in the toxicokinetics of POAA have been reported for rats although the mechanism of excretion may be species dependent since these gender differences were not observed in mice, rabbits or dogs [Griffith and Long, 1980; Hanhijarvi and Ylinen, 1988]. The half-life of POAA was estimated to be 7 times higher (7 days) in male rats than female rats. A limitation to this study design which must be considered in the interpretation of the data was our inability to more accurately quantify an employee's work history experience. Decatur work history records provide department numbers and job titles but they do not provide information regarding where someone worked (e.g., what building(s) or with what specific fluorochemicals). Self-reported work history information obtained by questionnaire was highly correlated with Decatur work history record information; nevertheless, the specificity of where someone worked and with what chemicals was not known. Because many operations are in batch mode, the likelihood of determining specificity of workload fluorochemical exposure among chemical operators is not possible. Furthermore, such records do not exist back in time. Nevertheless, with use of the employees current (or longest) job along with additional surrogate variable exposures (years worked in chemical, building number) we were able to compare and contrast fluorochemical levels. The least predictive of these three variables (job type, building and years worked) was years worked with the exception of PFHS where a strong linear 001316 association existed across job categories for PFHS with years worked. 3M EPI-0006 Page 38 of 85 We did not observe an association between hand-to-mouth usage or hand cleanliness (frequency of washing hands) and serum fluorochemical levels. It is possible an association might have been masked because industrial hygiene had instituted an aggressive educational campaign several months prior to the collection of blood samples in this study; thus, current practices may not be indicative of past practices. Because the half-life of PFOS is estimated to be 1000 days or more, such an association may not be discoverable with this study design. The serum levels observed in this study for PFOS and POAA are not different than those that have been previously reported for this study and other 3M occupational populations [Olsen et al., 1998a, 1998b, 1999]. Olsen et al. [1999] have not associated hepatic or lipid abnormalities with PFOS levels in the Decatur and Antwerp plant populations that underwent voluntary medical surveillance in 1995 and 1997. Hepatic lipid or hormone levels have not been associated with serum POAA levels among 3M Cottage Grove male workers who have experienced higher serum fluorochemical levels than those determined in the present study for these Decatur employees [Gilliland and Mandel 1996; Olsen et al. 1998a; 1998b]. In summary, the objective of this proposed research study was to characterize , via random sampling, the distribution of employee serum levels of PFOS, PFHS, POAA, PFOSAA, M570, PFOSA and M556 at the 3M Decatur chemical and film plants. The data obtained from this exposure assessment investigation are important for several reasons. First, these data allow for a better understanding of the exposure distribution of serum fluorochemical levels in both the chemical and film plant employee populations. Second, these data may serve as future reference regarding human exposure assessment 001317 3M EPI-0006 Page 39 of 85 for the film as well as the chemical plant in the area of health studies and exposure reduction. Third, the data may be used for the construction of an exposure matrix for the anticipated update of the retrospective cohort mortality study of the Decatur employee population. Finally, this study will allow for the opportunity for employees to know their own serum levels for these seven fluorochemicals and encourage further practices leading to a reduction in their serum fluorochemical levels by the variety of exposure-reduction methods recommended in the Decatur industrial hygiene exposure assessment report [Logan, 1998]. 001318 3M EPI-0006 Page 40 of 85 REFERENCES Griffith F, Long J. Animal toxicity studies with ammonium periluorooctanoate. Am Ind Hyg Assoc 1980;41:5760583. Hanhijarvi H, Ylinen M. A proposed species difference in the renal excretion of periluorooctanoic acid in the beagle dog and rat. In: Beynen A, Solleveld H, eds. New Developments in Biosciences: their Implications for Laboratory Animal Sciences. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. 1988:409-412. Hansen K. Laboratory Report: Analysis of FCs in Serum Samples Collected From Employees at 3M Decatur. St. Paul:3M Environmental Laboratory. June, 1999. Logan PW. 3M Decatur Fluorochemical Industrial Hygiene Exposure Assessment. (Unpublished report.) September 15, 1998. Gilliland FD, Mandel JS. Serum perfluorooctanoic acid and hepatic enzymes, lipoproteins and cholesterol: a study of occupationally exposed men. AJIM 1996;26:560568. Olsen GW, Gilliland FD, Burlew MM, Burris JM, Mandel JS, Mandel JH. An epidemiologic investigation of reproductive hormones in men with occupational exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid. J Occup Env Med 1998a;40:614-622. Olsen GW, Burris JM, Burlew MM, Mandel JH. An epidemiologic investigation of plasma cholecystokinin and hepatic function in perfluorooctanoic acid production workers. (3M unpublished report); 1998b. Olsen GW, Burris JM, Mandel JH, Zobel LR. Serum perfluorooctane sulfonate and hepatic and lipid clinical chemistry tests in fluorochemical production employees. J Occup Env Med (1999, in press). Roach DE. Fluorochemical Control Study. 3M Unpublished Report. 3M Company:St. Paul, MN May 25, 1982. Schuman LM (1982). Letter to Dr. Frank Ubel (3M Medical Director) concerning Fluorochemical Control Study. April 29, 1982. Vollmer D. Quantitative Determination of PFOS, PFOSA, PFOSAA, POAA and PFHS in Human Serum by LC/MS/MS. Salt Lake City:Northwest Bioanalytical. July 1999. 001319 3M EPI-0006 Page 41 of 85 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The investigators greatly appreciate the contributions of Kim Young to this final report. 001320 3M EPI-0006 Page 42 of 85 Table 1. Random sample selection by Decatur departments with percent participation Dept Number Dept Name Employees with 090 location codes 7613 3M/Dyneon Related Decatur Total N Sample Size 112 30 7620 7621 Decatur Bldg 2 Operations Bldg 49 Operations 25 10 1 7630 Decatur Bldg 3 Operations 113 30 7641 Decatur Bldg 4N Operations 60 15 7609 Decatur SMD Maint-SA&C 54 15 37 6825 8038 7604 7605 7616 7617 7622 Mfg Servcices Process Eng Process Instrumentation & CN Supply Chain Resource Unit Decatur SMD Chem Factory Adm Decatur SMD Chem Quality Ass Decatur Chem Ship Rev Whse Decatur SMD Logistics Decatur PCPD FF Admin 2 1 1 4 25 24 10 24 26 5980 Decatur EHS&R Employees regardless of 090 or 190 location 6853 Auto & Chem Mkts Eng 6853 Auto & Chem Mkts Eng 4290 Auto & Chem IT NPI/R&D 4294 Auto & Chem IT Mfg - Quality/S 4297 Auto & Chem IT CMG Mfg Waste water treatment employees 5984 Decatur Waste Treatment 21 8(090) 6(190) 1 (190) 4(190) 6(190) 6 5 5 6 Participated (%) Yes No 25 (83) 7(70) 5(17) 5(30) 25(83) 13 (87) 14 (93) 23(88) 5 (17) 2(13) 1(7) 3(12) 5 (100) 4(80) 0(0) 1(20) 6(100) 0(0) 001321 Table 1 (continued) Dept Number______ Dept Name_____________ Heating plant employees 5982 Decatur Heating Plant Film plant employees All remaining 190 location Department codes Dyneon TOTAL Dyneon employees 3M EPI-0006 Page 43 of 85 Participated (%) Total N Sample Size_____ Yes________ No 10 4 3(75) 1(25) 482 78 25 8 1025 232 55(71) 6(75) 186(80) 23 (29) 2(25) 46 (20) Table 2. Number (and percent) of random sample, volunteer and all participant chemical employees by demographic characteristics Gender Female Male Only Worked In Chemical Yes No Current Job Cell Operator Chemical Operator Engineer/Lab Maintenance Mill Operator Secretary Supervisor/Mgmt Waste Operator Longest Job Cell Operator Chemical Operator Engineer/Lab ^ Film Processor jg Maintenance Cw Mill Operator Secretary Supervisor/Mgmt Waste Operator Sample (N = 126)________ ________ Volunteers (N = 61)________ N (%) N (%) 24 (19) 9 (15) 102 (81) 52 (85) All Participants (N = 187) N (%) 33 (18) 154 (82) 67 (53) 59 (47) 5 (4) 47 (37) 23 (18) 11 (9) 13 (10) 4 (3) 18 (14) 5 (4) 33 (54) 100 (53) 28 (46) 87 (47) 4 (7) 17 (28) 14 (23) 6 (10) 11 (18) 1 (2) 8 (13) 0 (0) 9 (5) 64 (34) 37 (20) 17 (9) 24 (13) 5 (3) 26 (14) 5 (3) 1 (1) 57 (45) 21 (17) 3 (2) 14 (11) 14 (11) 6 (5) 7 (6) 3 (2) 2 (3) 20 (33) 10 (16) 2 (3) 6 (10) 12 (20) 1 (2) 8 (13) 0 (0) 3 (2) 77 (41) 31 (17) 5 (3) 20 (11) 26 (14) 7 (4) 15 (8) 3 (2) 001323 Table 2. (continued) Chew Gum Always/Frequently Sometimes Rarely/Never Chew Tobacco Yes No Smoke Cigarettes Yes No Hand to Mouth Contact Yes No Wash Hands Yes No Sample (N = 126) N (%) 22 (18) 32 (26) 70 (56) 19 (15) 105 (85) 41 (33) 82 (67) 84 (68) 40 (32) 101 (81) 23 (19) O O CO N 3M EPI-0006 Page 45 of 85 Volunteers (N = 16) N (%) 14 (23) 20 (33) 26 (43) 6 (10) 54 (90) 14 (23) 46 (77) 42 (70) 18 (30) 42 (70) 18 (30) All Participants (N = 187) N (%) 36 (20) 52 (28) 96 (52) 25 (14) 159 (86) 55 (31) 128 (69) 126 (68) 58 (32) 143 (78) 41 (22) 3M EPI-0006 Page 46 of 85 Table 3. Percentage of employees from the random sample, volunteers and all participants who responded that they currently work and ever worked in Decatur buildings/areas Currently Work in Buildings... 1 2/49 3 OS 3 NOS 4N 4 Mill/Extruder 17 38/51 42 61 Film Wastewater Ever Worked in Buildings... 1 2/49 3 OS 3 NOS 4N 4 Mill/Extruder 17 38/51 42 61 Film Wastewater Sample (N = 126) N (%) 42 (33) 22 (17) 39 (31) 41 (33) 37 (29) 45 (36) 18 (14) 24 (19) 15 (12) 23 (18) 12 (10) 14 (11) Sample N (%) 52 (41) 33 (26) 68 (54) 72 (57) 64 (51) 80 (63) 22 (17) 36 (29) 29 (23) 25 (20) 41 (33) 19 (15) Volunteer (N = 61) N (%) 22 (36) 16 (26) 21 (34) 23 (38) 22 (36) 29 (48) 10 (16) 21 (34) 14 (23) 14 (23) 9 (15) 10 (16) Volunteer N (%) 25 (41) 14 (23) 30 (49) 31 (51) 30 (49) 43 (70) 9 (15) 21 (34) 18 (30) 12 (20) 19 (31) 7 (11) All Participants (N = 187) N (%) 64 (34) 38 (20) 60 (32) 64 (34) 59 (32) 74 (40) 28 (15) 45 (24) 29 (16) 37 (20) 21 (11) 24 (13) All Participants N (%) 77 (41) 47 (25) 98 (52) 103 (55) 94 (50) 123 (66) 17 (9) 57 (30) 47 (25) 37 (20) 60 (32) 26 (14) 001325 3M EPI-0006 Page 47 of 85 Table 4. Serum fluorochemical levels (ppm) of random sample, volunteers and all participant chemical employees PFOS Random Sample Geometric Mean Mean Median Range 1.505 0.941 1.140 0.091 - 10.600 Volunteers Geometric Mean Mean Median Range 1.259 0.758 0.877 0.052-4.940 All Participants Geometric Mean Mean Median Range 1.424 0.877 0.994 0.052-10.600 PFHS 0.345 0.180 0.170 0.005- 1.880 0.272 0.122 0.125 0.001-1.580 0.321 0.159 0.167 0.001 - 1.880 POAA 1.536 0.899 1.300 0.021-6.760 1.206 0.649 0.908 0.015- 4.640 1.429 0.808 1.200 0.015-6.760 PFOSAA 0.023 0.008 0.008 0.001 -0.269 0.026 0.007 0.006 0.001-0.234 0.024 0.008 0.008 0.001 -0.269 M570 PFOSA 0.150 0.062 0.081 a 0.013 0.067 0.008 - 0.992 0.012 0.0005-0.612 0.173 0.068 0.029 0.006 0.054 0.004-3.100 0.007 0.005 - 0.443 0.158 0.076 0.063 0.004-3.100 0.051 0.010 0.010 0.001-0.612 M556 0.052 0.022 0.026 0.001-0.406 0.041 0.020 0.018 0.003-0.329 0.048 0.022 0.023 0.001 -0.406 a. significantly different (p < .05) geometric mean than volunteers, student's t test 001326 3M EPI-0006 Page 48 of 85 Table 5. Demographic characteristics of current job categories of random sample (N = 126) of chemical employees Age Mean SE (standard error) Median Range BMI Mean SE Median Range Years Worked In Chemical Mean SE Median Range Gender* Female Male Cell Operator" (N = 5) 45' 1.2 44 40-50 25.8 1.5 25.0 22.1 -30.0 23b,d'c 2.0 24 17-29 N (%) 1(20) 4(80) Chemical Operator11 (N = 47) 1.2 43 25-62 28.31 5.1 27.8 20.2-47.5 11",e,g 1.4 10 1-31 N (%) 10(21) 37 (79) Engineer/ Labc (N = 23) 41g,h 1.7 42 23-58 27.6 5.0 27.6 18.5-38.4 Maintenance4 (N =11) 41*.h 2.5 42 27-52 Mill Operator' (N = 13) 2.3 34 27-45 26.9 2.8 26.6 22.8-32.5 27.7 5.4 27.3 19.6-42.0 Secretaryf (N = 4) 45' 4.2 45 42-49 22.4b,g 2.0 22.0 20.9-25.1 15e 2.8 15 1-37 N (%) 6(26) 17 (74) 9*.g 3.0 4 1-26 N (%) 0(0) 11 (100) ^a,b,c,tg,h 1.5 1 1 -21 N (%) 1(8) 12 (92) 15' 4.9 18 2-25 N (%) 4(0) 0(0) Only Worked In* Chemical Yes No Hand to Mouth Contact Yes No Wash Hands Always Less frequently 3(60) 2(40) 3(60) 2(40) 5(100) 0(0) 23 (49) 24 (51 35(76 11(24) 40 (87) 6(13) 14(61) 9(39) 11 (50) 11 (50) 16 (73) 6(27) 6(55) 5(45) 8(73) 3(27) 10(91) 1(9) 11 (85) 2(15) 10 (77) 3(23) 12 (92) 1(8) 1(25) 3(75) 2(50) 2(50) 2(50) 2(50) Supervisor/ Mgmt8 ( N = 18) 47b,c,d,e 20 45 41-57 29.5f 61 27.6 21.8-47.3 20bdc 25 24 1-36 N (%) 2(11) 16(89) 9(50) 9(50) 12 (67) 6(33) 13 (72) 5(28) Current job types significantly different, p < .05 chi square statistic (a-h) comparison for each current job category using student's t(p < .05) Waste Operator11 (N = 5) c (\b ,c ,d ,e 77 50 49-52 25.5 32 25 8 21.8-30.1 14' 45 16 1-27 N (%) 0(0) 5(100) 0(0) 5(100) 3(60) 2 (40) 3(60) 2(40) 001327 3M EPI-0006 Page 49 of 85 Table 6. Mean, geometric mean and median of serum fluorochemicals by demographic characteristics of random sample (N = 126) of chemical employees Gender Female Male PFOS Mean 0.686 1.697 Geometric Mean Median 0.459 0.897* 0.412 1.310 PFHS Mean 0.118 0.398 Geometric Mean Median 0.080 0.218* 0.082 0.223 POAA Geometric Mean Mean Median 0.691 1.735 0.326 1.142* 0.245 1.000 Hand To mouth Yes No 1.362 1.810 1.008 0.674 1.140 0.954 0.278 0.474 0.173 0.185 0.168 0.181 1.504 1.602 0.963 0.637 1.355 1.210 Wash hands Yes No 1.581 1.179 0.897 0.459 1.190 0.735 0.360 0.259 0.188 0.136 0.176 0.126 1.597 1.263 0.978 0.731 1.300 1.300 Worked only in chemical Yes No 1.113 1.927 0.723 1.271 0.784 1.550 0.247 0.456 0.126 0.270* 0.141 0.306 1.307 1.797 0.729 1.142* 1.060 1.590 001328 Table, (continued) PFOSAA Geometric Mean Mean Median Gender Female Male 0.011 0.003 0.026 0.010 0.002 0.009 M570 Geometric Mean Mean Median 0.077 0.053 0.168 0.089* 0.052 0.073 Hand To Mouth Yes No 0.026 0.019 0.009 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.153 0.085 0.139 0.079 0.637 0.081 Wash hands Yes No 0.025 0.009 0.017 0.005 0.009 0.003 Worked only in chemical Yes No 0.024 0.009 0.022 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.162 0.088 0.893 0.055 0.672 0.632 0.142 0.075 0.160 0.088 0.063 0.074 001329 * t test, p < .05 3M EPI-0006 Page 50 of 85 PFOSA Geometric Mean Mean Median M556 Geometric Mean Mean Median 0.037 0.012 0.068 0.013 0.014 0.011 0.025 0.058 0.014 0.025 0.013 0.028 0.050 0.080 0.012 0.013 0.012 0.011 0.054 0.048 0.022 0.026 0.021 0.030 0.063 0.045 0.013 0.009 0.013 0.009 0.059 0.020 0.026* 0.012 0.028 0.015 0.059 0.065 0.012 0.014 0.013 0.011 0.046 0.058 0.019 0.027 0.019 0.030 3M EPI-0006 Page 51 o f 85 Table 7. Mean, range, geometric mean and 95% confidence interval o f geometric mean o f serum fluorochemical levels by current job categories among random sample (N = 126) of chemical employees PFOS Mean Range Cell Operator* (N = 5) Chemical Operator1" (N = 47) 2.903 0.325-6.840 1.781 0.471-7.260 Engineer/ Lab* (N = 23) Maintenance1* (N - 11) Mill Operator* (N = 13) 0.634 0.095-1.740 1.672 0.291-4.060 0.718 0.230-2.040 Secretary* (N = 4) Supervisor/ Mgmt8 ( N = 18) Waste Operator11 (N = 5) 0.497 0.220- 1.140 1.879 0.091 - 10.600 2.649 0.254 - 7.880 G. Mean 9 5 % C.I. PFHS Mean Range 1.970*'*'* 0.732-5.304 1.481*'*,g,h 1.250- 1.755 0 39i"'b>d'8-h 0.256 - 0.597 1.299*'*'* 0.822-2.054 0.589*'b'd,h 0.419-0.828 0 397*'b'd'h 0.195-0.807 0.885* 0.480- 1.630 1.504*'*'* 0.493-4.589 1.062 0.083- 1.880 0.428 0.071 -1.860 0.171 0.005 - 0.905 0.237 0.023 - 0.790 0.109 0.028-0.374 0.082 0.027-0.172 0.419 0.010- 1.420 0.444 0.038- 1.210 G. Mean 9 5 % C.I. 0.697*'d,e'*,s 0.308*'** 0.228-2.130 0.246-0.386 0.078*'b'g'b 0.046-0.134 0.153* 0.084-0.280 0.074*'b'8'b 0.047-0.116 0.066*-bg 0.031 -0.140 0.215*'*'* 0.115-0.402 0.232*'* 0.069-0.775 POAA Mean Range G. Mean 9 5 % C.I. 2.213 0.126-3.640 1,428c,f 0.422-4.833 2.252 0.150-6.760 1.887c'f'8 1.573-2.265 0.376 0.035-2.320 1.483 0.211-4.680 0.208a'b'd,e'f'g,h 1.095** 0.134-0.324 0.670-1.791 1.383 0.450-2.340 1.266*'f,g 0.985-1.629 0.183 0.095-2.611 1.371 0.021 -4.540 1.663 0.936-2.710 0.172"'b'd'*'gh 0.637b*'** 0.113-0.260 0.310-1.308 1.542*'* 1.052-2.259 PFOSAA Mean Range G. Mean 9 5 % C.I. 0.006 0.001-0.016 0.003b,d,e 0.001-0.009 0.036 0.001-0.269 0.011"^ 0.007-0.018 0.014 0.001-0.073 0.005w '* 0.003-0.010 0.034 0.001-0.083 0.017*'*'* 0.007-0.043 0.020 0.004 - 0.038 0.015*'*'* 0.010-0.024 0.002 0.001 - 0.004 0.002b,d'* 0.001-0.003 0.011 0.001 -0.054 0.006 0.003-0.010 0.009 0.003-0.017 0.006 0.003-0.013 001330 M570 Mean Range G. Mean 9 5 % C.I. 0.035 0.024-0.056 0.033b>d 0.024 - 0.045 0.229 0.009-0.992 0.074 0.008-0.410 0.131*'c'*'*'g 0.049b>d 0.094-0.182 0.034-0.071 0.268 0.038-0.701 0.045 0.025-0.115 0.204*'*'*'*'8 0.042b,d 0.124-0.335 0.034-0.051 0.039 0.010-0.072 0.030bd 0.013-0.071 0.122 0.010-0.553 0.064m 0.037-0.111 0.087 0.050-0.159 0.079 0.052-0.121 Table 7. (continued) PFOSA Mean Range G. Mean 9 5 % C.I. 0.003 0.001 -0.011 0.002bc 0.001-0.005 0.099 0.001 - 0.487 0.017 0.001-0.063 0.028*-cd's 0.017-0.048 0.005be 0.002-0.010 0.065 0.001 -0.569 0.009b 0.003 - 0.025 M556 Mean Range 0.014 0.003 - 0.028 0.074 0.001 -0.380 0.019 0.002 - 0.127 0.115 0.016-0.406 G. Mean 9 5 % C.I. 0.01 lbd 0.005-0.218 0.044a'cc'i'8 0.010b'd 0.032-0.061 0.006-0.015 0.074a'c,c'f'8 0.041-0.135 (a-h) comparisons for each current job category using student's t, p < 0.5 001331 3M EPI-0006 Page 52 of 85 0.040 0.012-0.204 0.026*- 0.016-0.040 0.031 0.009-0.080 0.021 0.009-0.054 0.065 0.001-0.612 0.007 0.003-0.020 0.0381 0.002-0.161 0.012 0.003-0.048 0.013 0.002-0.045 0.009b,d 0.006-0.015 0.015 0.003 - 0.030 0.010b'a 0.003 - 0.031 0.046 0.003-0.336 0.015bd 0.007 - 0.030 0.047 0.013-0.157 0.027 0.011-0.068 3M EPI-0006 Page 53 of 85 Table 8. Fluorochemical ratios by current job categories for random sample (N = 126) of chemical employees PFOS/PFHS Mean Median Range PFOS/POAA Mean Median Range PFOS/Analytes Mean Median Range M570/M556 Mean Median Range PFOSAA/M556 Mean Median q Range p PFOSA/M556 C*3 Mean Cs) Median ^ Range Cell Chemical Operator3 Operator6 (N = 5)______ (N = 47) 3.0d,e,h 3.3 1.5-3.9 5.5 d'e 5.2 1.1-14.8 1.5' 1.0 1.0 -2 .6 0.9c,fg 0.9 0.3-3.1 52.6 b'h 56.1 4.9-93.3 7.4 ^ 4.7 1.3-61.8 3.5 2 .8 2.0-7.5 3 7 .' 3.0 0.5-8.9 0.4' 0.3 0.1-1.3 0.9' 0 .2 0.03 - 8.5 0.4 0 .1 0.04-1.2 3.0 0.3 0.03-30.7 Engineer/ Labc (N = 23) Maintenance"1 (N =ll) Mill Supervisor/ Operator' Secretaryf Mgmt6 (N = 13)______ (N = 4)______ (N = 18) 5.9 4e 5.2 1.6-18.8 9 2 a'b'c>8 10.3 3.7-16.5 8.5 a,b,g,h 8.3 4.3 -14.9 6.1 5.8 4.8-8.3 5.0 d'e 3.3 1.9-11.7 1.7 0.7-4.4 1.2c,e,f 1.3 0.7-1.5 0 5 a,',f,g 0.5 0.2 - 0.9 2 b,d,e,h 2 .0 1.7-4.4 1.8be 1.6 0.3-4.8 7.43,6 3.9 0.8-36.8 4.6^ 3.2 1.4-11.7 6.73 4.8 2.5-20.5 6.73 6.9 3.2-9.7 16.7a 6.7 1.3-134.2 5.8b 5.7 1.9-14.4 3.3 c'e 2.7 1.2-8.7 5.8 w 4.3 1.2-21.3 3.2 3.2 2.2-43 5.3 4.2 1.6-9.5 1.1 ' 0 .8 0.03-4.5 0 .8 ' 0 .1 0.01-3.1 2 4 a-d,f-h 2.3 0.2-5.7 0.2' 0.2 0.05-0.5 i.r 0.5 0.02-4.8 2.5 0.3 0.03-18.3 0.4' 0 .1 0.02 - 2.7 7.6d 2.1 0.8-52.3 2.5 2.7 0.9-3.7 4.7 0.3 0.02-64.1 Waste Operator6 (N = 5) 7.13 6.6 3.2-12.3 1.4f 1 .0 0.3-2.9 26.5 "* 9.8 0.8 - 99.4 3.3 3.4 1.0- 5.3 0.4' 0.3 -0 . 1 1.1 2.6 0.3 0.03-11.8 001332 3M EPI-0006 Page 54 of 85 Table 9. Demographic characteristics o f longest job categories o f random sample (N = 126) o f chemical employees Age Mean SE Median Range BMI Mean SE Median Range Years Worked In Chemical Mean SE Median Range Gender Female Male Only Worked In Chemical* Yes No Hand to Mouth Contact Yes No Wash Hands o Yes No Chemical Operator* (N = 57) 43 1.1 44 25-62 27.8 0.7 27.5 18-47 14d 1.3 14 1-31 N% 8 i[14) 49 (86) 27 (47) 30 (53) 39 (70) 17 (30) 47 (84) 9 (16) Engineer/ Labb (N = 21) 40 2.3 41 23-58 28.8 1.1 28.0 21-38 12a 2.7 8 1-37 N% 5 (24) 16 (76) 15 (71) 6 (29) 11 (52) 10 (48) 15 (71) 6 (29) Maintenance' ( N = 14) 43 1.9 43 27-54 27.2 0.7 26.7 23-33 11 3.0 8 1-36 N% 0 (0) 14 (100) 6 (43) 8 (57) 9 (64) 5 (36) 86 (12) 2 (14) Mill Operator"1 ( N = 14) 35 1.8 32 27-45 27.3 1.4 26.9 20-42 3<M> 1.4 1 1-21 N% 2 (14) 12 (86) 12 (86) 2 (14) 11 (79) 3 (21) 93 (13) 1 (7) Secretary* (N = 6) 46d 1.9 45 42-54 24.2 1.4 23.9 21-30 Supervisor/ Mgmt.f (N = 7) 49b'd 2.1 50 42-56 29.4 3.5 25.9 18-47 20d 4.4 23 2-33 N% 6 (100) 0 (0) 20.2d 5.5 23 1-37 N% 2 (28) 5 (72) 3 (50) 3 (50) 4 (57) 3 (43) 3 (50) 3 (50) 3 (50) 3 (50) 5 (72) 2 (28) 6 (86) 1 (14) *Significantly different percentage among longest job categories, chi square, p < .05 (a-h) comparisons for each longest job category using student's t, p < .05 Waste Operator* (N = 3) 53m 2.3 52 49-57 26.9 2.4 25.8 23-32 11.0 6.8 8 1-24 N% 0 (0) 3 (100) 0 (0) 3 (100) 3 (100) 0 (0) 2 (67) 1 (33) 001333 3M EPI-0006 Page 55 o f 85 Table 10. Mean, median, geometric mean and 95% confidence intervals o f geometric mean o f serum fluorochemical levels by longest job categories among random sample (N = 126) of chemical employees PFOS Mean Range Chemical Operator3 (N = 57) 2.088 0.338-7.880 Engineer/ Labb (N = 21) 0.520 0.095-1.740 Maintenance0 (N= 14) 2.250 0.291-10.600 Mill Operator"1 (N= 14) 0.735 0.230-2.040 Secretary* (N = 6) 0.388 0.129- 1.140 Supervisor/ Mgmtf (N = 7) 0.536 0.091 - 1.220 Waste Operator8 (N = 3) 2.388 0.254-4.840 G. Mean 95% C.I. PFHS Mean Range 1.697b,d'*'f 1.440-1.998 0.543 0.073- 1.880 0.330a'cAg 0.219-0.496 0.116 0.005-0.420 1.490b,d,e,f 0.933 - 2.379 0.297 0.023-1.250 0.6093,c,f 0.441 -0.842 0.107 0.028-3.744 o ^ s 3-08 0.163-0.533 0.070 0.027-0.172 O ^ O O 3,0'8 0.209 - 0.764 0.128 0.010-0.383 1.365bAf 0.245 - 7.600 0.256 0.0388 - 0.562 G. Mean 95% C.l. POAA Mean Range 0.388b,c'd,e'f' 0.0673'* 0.314-0.480 0.041-0.110 2.293 0.182-6.760 0.287 0.035-1.000 0.176a,b'd,e 0.101 -0.307 1.667 0.211-4.680 0.0743'* 0.048-0.112 1.383 0.450-2.340 0.057a,c 0.033 - 0.097 0.143 0.053-0.261 0.0773 0.030-0.193 0.407 0.021 -1.790 0.153 0.033-0.703 2.219 0.936-3.680 G. Mean 95% C.l. PFOSAA Mean Range 1.972b'c,e,f 1.694-2.295 0.032 0.001 -0.269 0.198a'c,d,g 0.134-0.295 0.014 0.001 -0.073 1.229a,b'e,f 0.797-1.900 0.029 0.001-0.083 1.274b,e,f 1.009-1.609 0.019 0.004-0.038 0.124a'c'd,E 0.076 - 0.203 0.002 0.001-0.004 0.177a,c,d,g 0.062-0.510 0.011 0.001-0.019 1.915bAf 0.881-4.166 0.008 0.003-0.016 G. Mean 95% C.l. M570 Mean Range 0.010b* 0.007-0.016 0.213 0.009-0.992 o.oos3-*'"1 0.027-0.010 0.060 0.008-0.164 0.014b,e 0.007-0.031 0.269 0.038-0.701 0.014b,e 0.009 - 0.022 0.046 0.025-0.115 floor*.6 0.001 -0.002 0.032 0.010-0.072 0.008* 0.004-0.017 0.071 0.016-0.201 0.006 0.002-0.016 0.104 0.053-0.159 G. Mean 95% C.l. 0.120bdef 0.089-0.161 0.0463,0 0.033 - 0.064 0.200b,d,e,f 0.126-0.315 0.0433'0 0.035-0.052 0.0253,c 0.014-0.046 0.05430 0.030-0.096 0.095 0.050-0.177 001334 Table 10. (continued) PFOSA Mean Range 0.088 0.001 - 0.487 0.016 0.001 -0.063 0.095 0.001-0.612 G. Mean 95% C.I. M556 Mean Range 0.02 l b,f 0.0126 - 0.0340 0.070 0.001 -0.380 G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.039b,d,e,f 0.029 - 0.054 0.004a,d 0.002-0.009 0.014 0.002 - 0.039 0.009a'c,e,f,g 0.006-0.014 0.010 0.003 - 0.028 0.117 0.015-0.406 0.069b,d'e,f 0.038-0.123 (a-h) comparisons for each current job category using student's t, p < .05 001335 3M EPI-0006 Page 56 o f 85 0.042 0.012-0.204 0.028b,f 0.018-0.044 0.013 0.002 - 0.045 0 . 0 io3-0 0.006-0.015 0.024 0.009 - 0.080 0.017f 0.009 - 0.033 0.011 0.003 - 0.030 o.oo?3-0-8 0.003-0.017 0.027 0.001-0.173 0.002a,d,e 0.004-0.012 0.019 0.003 - 0.059 0.01 lad 0.004 - 0.027 0.014 0.005 - 0.027 0.012 0.005 - 0.029 0.067 0.001 -0.157 0.037be 0.008-0.180 3M EPI-0006 Page 57 o f 85 Table 11. Ratio o f fluorochemical levels by longest job categories among random sample (N = 126) o f chemical employees PFOS/PFHS Mean Median Range Chemical Operator3 (N = 57) 5.0c,d,g 4.9 1.1-14.8 Engineer/ Labb (N = 21) 5.8c,d 4.8 1.9-18.8 Maintenance0 (N= 14) 9 ja,b,e,f 9.2 3.7-16.5 Mill Operatord (N= 14) 8.8a,b,e,f 8.3 4.3-14.9 Secretary0 (N = 6) 5.6'd 5.8 2.2 - 8.3 Supervisor/ Mgmtf (N = 7) 6.0 3.9 3.0-11.7 PFOS/POAA Mean Median Range 1.0b''f 0.9 0.3-2.9 2.0a'c'd'f'8 1.7 0.3-4.4 1.3 0.6-2.3 0.5b,c,e'f 0.5 0.2 - 0.9 2.6aAg 2.0 1.6-4.4 2.6a'b'c'd,g 52.6 0.7-4.8 PFOS/Analytes Mean Median Range 13.4 5.4 1.3-99.4 5.9 3.9 0.8-16.8 5.3 3.8 1.4-11.7 6.6 4.8 2.5-20.5 6.0 5.5 3.2-9.7 5.5 3.3 1.3-17.8 M570/M556 Mean Median Range 3.8b,f 3.0 0.5-9.5 5.7a' 4.5 1.9-14.4 3.5b,f 3.1 1.2-8.7 5.6 4.2 1.2-21.3 3.7 3.9 2.2-5.8 6.4a-c 3.4 2.5-19.5 PFOSAA/M556 Mean Median Range 0.9d 0.2 0.03-8.5 l.ld 0.6 0.04-4.5 0.7d 0.1 0.01-3.1 2 ^b.c.e.g 2 .2 0.2-5.7 0.2d 0.2 0.05 - 0.5 1.4 1.2 0.02-3.7 PFOSA/M556 Mean Median Range 2.6f 0.3 0.03 - 30.7 2.2 0.3 0.03 -18.3 0.5d,f 0.1 0.02-2.7 7.4 2.1 0.8-52.3 2.6 2.7 0.9-3.7 9.2a,c 0.1 0.02-64.1 (a-g) comparisons for each longest job category using student's t, p < .05 Waste Operator8 (N = 3) 9.2a 8.6 6.6-12.3 0 9 b,e.f 1.0 0 .3 - 1.3 22.2 13.9 0.8-51.9 3.2 3.0 1.0-5.5 0.2d 0.1 0.1-0.5 1.1 0.3 0.03-2.8 001336 3M EPI-0006 Page 58 o f 85 Table 12. Mean, range, geometric mean and 95% confidence interval of geometric mean of serum fluorochemicals among random sample (N = 126) of chemical employees who currently only work in certain buildings (as listed) PFOS Mean Range Bldg. 1 (N=15) 0.768 0.109-2.190 Bldgs. 2/49 (N=7) 2.621 0.325 - 6.840 Bldg. 3 (N=22) 2.457 0.885 - 7.260 Bldg. 4MX (N=21) 0.607 0.23-1.620 Bldg. 4N (N=5) 2.000 1.440-2670 Waste water (N=4) 2.763 0.254-7.880 G. Mean 95% C.I. PFHS Mean Range 0.481 0.270-0.858 0.228 0.013-0.713 1.945 0.824-4.592 0.996 0.083-1.880 2.135 1.693-2.693 0.568 0.151-1.860 0.525 0.364-0.757 0.101 0.028 - 0.374 1.937 1.369 1.378-2.723 0.136- 13.741 0.450 0.161-0.832 0.386 0.038- 1.210 G. Mean 95% C.I. POAA Mean Range 0.115 0.057-0.234 0.554 0.051 -2.700 0.709 0.262-1.922 1.879 0.126-3.640 0.410 0.286-0.586 2.777 0.261 -6.760 0.069 0.039-0.121 1.303 0.450-2.110 0.397 0.192-0.821 2.088 1.300-2.860 0.177 0.018-1.729 1.804 0.936-2.710 G. Mean 95% C.I. PFOSAA Mean Range 0.240 0.119-0.487 0.013 0.001-0.054 1.251 0.412-3.802 0.005 0.001-0.016 2.128 1.467-3.087 0.055 0.003-0.269 1.188 0.865- 1.631 0.019 0.002 - 0.038 2.024 1.420-2.886 0.019 0.004 - 0.043 1.677 0.815-3.452 0.010 0.003-0.017 G. Mean 95% C.I. M570 Mean Range 0.004 0.002-0.010 0.101 0.015-0.410 0.003 0.001-0.008 0.028 0.010-0.056 0.023 0.012-0.043 0.382 0.063-0.992 0.014 0.007-0.026 0.037 0.025-0.053 0.011 0.003 - 0.048 0.099 0.054-0.205 0.007 0.002-0.031 0.091 0.050-0.159 G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.071 0.044-0.115 0.023 0.013-0.043 0.308 0.224-0.423 0.036 0.031-0.043 0.088 0.047-0.165 0.081 0.034-0.195 001337 Table 12. (continued) PFOSA Mean Range 0.026 0.005-0.161 G. Mean 95% C.I. M556 Mean Range 0.009 0.004 - 0.022 0.027 0.003-0.127 G. Mean 95% C.I. Years in chemical Mean 0.017 0.010-0.030 20 0.003 0.005-0.106 0.002 0.001 -0.005 0.012 0.003-0.028 0.009 0.004-0.021 24 0.102 0.003 - 0.569 0.036 0.018-0.072 0.119 0.024-0.380 0.092 0.066-0.129 10 3M EPI-0006 Page 59 of 85 0.042 0.012-0.204 0.027 0.015-0.047 0.008 0.016-0.018 0.007 0.005 - 0.011 5 0.251 0.003-0.487 0.059 0.002- 1.595 0.007 0.002 - 0.011 0.006 0.002- 0.019 0.076 0.026-0.175 0.056 0.019-0.163 0.056 0.015-0.157 0.033 0.006-0.193 13 13 3M EPI-0006 Page 60 of 85 Table 13. Mean, range, geometric mean and 95% confidence interval of geometric mean of serum fluorochemicals for those employees in random sample (N = 126) who said they have only worked in one building/area PFOS Mean Range Bldg. 1 (N=6) 0.474 0.129-1.700 Bldg. 3 (N=7) 2.561 1.450-5.120 Bldg. 4MX (N=8) 0.521 0.230-0.838 G. Mean 95% C.I. PFHS Mean Range 0.302 0.114-0.797 0.117 0.013-0.420 2.293 1.453-3.619 0.835 0.151 - 1.860 0.554 0.340 - 0.904 0.063 0.038-0.152 G. Mean 95% C.I. POAA Mean Range 0.064 0.018-0.223 0.164 0.053 - 0.386 0.519 0.185- 1.450 3.021 0.366-6.760 0.064 0.039-0.103 1.082 0.450-1.850 G. Mean 95% C.I. PFOSAA Mean Range 0.125 0.053 - 0.294 0.001 0.001-0.003 2.033 0.773-5.351 0.030 0.005-0.118 1.030 0.719-1.476 0.020 0.008-0.037 G. Mean 95% C.I. M570 Mean Range 0.001 0.001 -0.002 0.082 0.015-0.201 0.016 0.005-0.047 0.318 0.063 - 0.480 0.015 0.008 - 0.027 0.040 0.026 - 0.053 G. Mean 95% C.I. PFOSA Mean Range 0.053 0.018-0.159 0.023 0.009 - 0.060 0.274 0.145-0.520 0.158 0.003 - 0.569 0.048 0.028-0.081 0.043 0.001 -0.204 G. Mean 95% C.I. M556 Mean Range 0.019 0.009-0.037 0.022 0.003 - 0.585 0.055 0.009 - 0.324 0.097 0.033-0.213 0.034 0.011 -0.108 0.010 0.004-0.019 G. Mean 95% C.I. Years in chemical Mean 0.014 0.004 - 0.045 23 0.079 0.042-0.150 15 0.013 0.005 - 0.034 1.6 001339 3M EPI-0006 Page 61 of 85 Table 14. Age, BMI and years worked in chemical among current job categories o f all participants (N = 187) in chemical Cell Operator" (N = 9) Chemical Operator1* (N = 64) Engineer/ Lab* (N = 37) Maintenanced (N = 17) Mill Operator* (N = 24) Secretaryf (N = 5) Supervisor/ Mgmtg (N = 26) Age Mean SE Median Range 45* 2.1 44 38-59 41*'B'h 1.2 41 25 - 62 42*'g,h 1.8 43 23-58 4 1*'g'h 1.5 42 27-52 2 ^ a ,b ,c ,d ,f,g ri 1.3 32 25-45 44* 1.3 44 42-49 4 gb.c,d,e 1.2 49 33-59 BMI Mean SE Median Range Years Worked In Chemical Mean SE Median Range 25.8 1.3 27.6 18-30 j ^b,d,e 3.2 21 2-30 28.3* 0.7 27.8 19-47 | Qa,c,e,g 1.1 10 1-31 27.3 0.9 27.3 16-38 15b'*'8 2.2 14 1-37 27.6 0.8 26.6 23-33 10a'*'g 2.6 3 1-30 28.1* 1.1 26.9 20-43 22.7b'*'g 0.8 23.0 21-25 28.9* 1.1 27.6 18-47 2 a ,b ,c ,4 f,g ji 0.8 1 1-21 16* 3.9 20 2-25 21b,d,e 2.1 24 1-36 Waste Operator* (N = 5) 50^>'C'd'e 0.7 50 49-52 25.5 1.4 25.8 21.8-30.1 14* 4.5 16 1-2 7 (a - h) comparisons for each current job category using student's t, p < .05 001340 3M EPI-0006 Page 62 of 85 Table 15. Number (and percentage) o f demographic characteristics among current job categories o f all participants (N = 187) in chemical Cell Operator (N=9) Chemical Operator (N=64) Engineer/ Lab (N=37) Maintenance (N=17) Mill Operator (N=24) Secretary (N=5) Supervisor/ Mgmt (N=26) Waste Operator (N=5) Gender* Female Male 1(11) 8(89) 12(19) 52 (81) 9(24) 28(76) 0(0) 17(100) 3(13) 21 (87) 5(100) 0(0) 3(12) 23 (88) 0(0) 5(100) Only Worked in Chemical* Yes No 5(55) 4(45) 30 (47) 34 (53) 22 (60) 15 (40) 10(59) 7(41) 22 (92) 2(8) 1(20) 4(80) 10(38) 16(62) 0(0) 5(100) Hand to Mouth Contact Yes No Wash Hands Always Less frequently 7(78) 2(22) 8(89) 1(11) 48 (77) 14 (23) 53 (85) 9(15) 16(44) 20 (56) 23 (64) 13 (36) 13 (76) 4(24) 15 (88) 2(12) 21(88) 3(13) 20 (83) 4(17) 3(60) 2(40) 3(60) 2(40) 15(58) 11(42) 18(69) 8(31) 3(60) 2(40) 3(60) 2(40) * Significantly different (p <.05) proportions betweenjob categories, chi square test 001341 3M EPI-0006 Page 63 of 85 Table 16. Mean, range, geometric mean and 95% confidence interval o f geometric mean o f serum fluorochemical levels by current job categories among all participants (N = 187) o f chemical PFOS Mean Range Cell Operator3 (N = 9) 2.266 0.325-6.840 Chemical Operator11 (N = 64) 1.839 0.189-7.260 Engineer/ Labc (N = 37) Maintenanced (N = 17) Mill Operator* (N = 24) 0.611 0.081 -1.740 1.772 0.625 0.291 -4.940 0.025-2.040 Secretaryf (N = 5) Supervisor/ Mgmtg (N = 26) Waste Operator* (N = 5) 0.451 1.732 2.648 0.220- 1.140 0.091 - 10.600 0.254-7.880 G. Mean 95% C.I. PFHS Mean Range 1.643*'^ 0.914-2.953 0.927 0.083- 1.880 1.480c'*'f>g 1.253- 1.749 0.411 0.034-1.860 0.390a,b'd,g'h 1.320c'*,f 0.501a,bA8'h 0.366a-bAh 0.842b'*'* 0.282 - 0.540 0.904-1.928 0.374-0.672 0.206-0.649 0.510-1.388 0.148 0.005 - 0.905 0.309 0.082 0.023-1.240 0.001-0.374 0.076 0.390 0.027-0.172 0.009- 1.420 1.504*'^ 0.493 - 4.589 0.444 0.038-1.210 G. Mean 95% C.I. POAA Mean Range G. Mean 95% C.I. PFOSAA Mean Range 0.664b,*'d'*'fg 0.292a'c,d,e'f 0.075a'b,d,g'h 0.178a,d,e 0.346-1.274 0.239-0.357 0.0500-0.111 0.107-0.297 1.811 0.126-3.640 1.263c,f,g 0.619-2.576 2.196 0.343 0.150-6.760 0.024-2.320 1.512 0.211-4.680 1.849c'd'*'f,g 0.198a,b'd,e'g'h 1.052c,f,g 1.587-2.154 0.141-0.277 0.691-1.602 0.009 0.001 -0.051 0.042 0.010 0.001 -0.269 0.001-0.073 0.037 0.001-0.125 0.053a,b,d'8'h 0.063a'b 0.180ace 0.035-0.080 0.035-0.113 0.010-0.324 0.232*'* 0.069 - 0.775 1.218 0.015-2.340 0.987c,f,g 0.668-1.457 0.167 1.289 0.095-0.261 0.021 -4.540 0.155a,b,d'*'s'h ^^ |q a ,b ,c ,d ,e ,f ,h 0.106-0.226 0.312-1.043 1.663 0.936-2.710 l.542*'f'g 1.052-2.259 0.022 0.003-0.049 0.002 0.001-0.004 0.009 0.009 0.001 -0.054 0.003-0.016 G. Mean 95% C.I. M570 Mean Range 0.003b* 0.001 -0.008 0.045 0.012-0.169 0.014a,c'd,g 0.004b,e 0.009 - 0.020 0.002 - 0.005 0.284 0.009-3.100 0.064 0.004-0.410 0.015b 0.016M 0.007 - 0.032 0.012-0.023 0.237 0.044 0.038-0.701 0.023-0.115 0 .0 0 1 0.001-0.002 0.005b 0.006 0.003 - 0.008 0.003-0.013 0.036 0.110 0.087 0.001 -0.072 0.010-0.553 0.050-0.159 G. Mean 0.032b,d 95% C.I. 0.020 - 0.054 0.143a'*'*'f,E 0.04 l b'd 0.107-0.192 0.030-0.056 0.186a'c,e,f,g 0.04 l b,d 0.130-0.267 0.036-0.047 0.029bd 0.063bd 0.079 0.015-0.057 0.041 -0.096 0.052-0.121 00134 Table 16. (continued) PFOSA Mean Range 0.006 0.0005-0.015 G. Mean 0.004 95% C.I. 0.002- 0.009 0.088 0.001-0.487 0.021,c,f 0.013-0.033 0.011 0.066 0.001-0.063 0.001-0.569 0.003bd,e 0.002 - 0.005 0.012c 0.005 - 0.027 M556 Mean Range G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.013 0.003-0.035 0.010b'd 0.006-0.017 0.074 0.024 0.001-0.380 0.002 - 0.033 0.045a,c'c,f,e 0.010M 0.034 - 0.059 0.007-0.014 (a-h) comparison for each current job category using student's t 0.088 0.008-0.406 0.054a'c'e'f'g 0.034-0.088 3M EPI-0006 Page 64 of 85 0.028 0.0005-0.204 0.017a,c 0.011-0.025 0.025 0.052 0.038 0.003-0.080 0.0005-0.612 0.002-0.161 0.014 0.007 0.012 0.004 - 0.042 0.003-0.015 0.003-0.048 0.014 0.002 - 0.045 0.011M 0.008-0.014 0.015 0.003 - 0.030 0.01 lbd 0.004 - 0.027 0.044 0.003 -0.336 0.017b'd 0.010-0.029 0.047 0.014-0.157 0.027 0.011-0.068 3M EPI-0006 Page 65 of 85 Table 17. Age, BMI and years worked in chemical by longest job categories o f all participants (N = 187) in chemical Cell Operator3 (N = 3) Chemical Operatorb (N = 77) Engineer/ Lab* (N = 31) Maintenance"1 (N = 20) Mill Operator* (N = 26) Age Mean SE Median Range BMI Mlnegs Mean SE Median Range 43 2.5 45 38-46 24.8 3.4 27.0 18-29 42c,8,h 1 .0 44 25-62 28.0 0.6 27.5 18-47 41e,8,h 2.0 41 23-58 28.0 0.9 27.7 21-38 43e,B 1.5 43 27-54 27.7 0.7 26.7 23-33 2^b,c,d,f,g4 1.4 32 25-51 28.1 1.1 26.9 20-43 Years Worked In Chemical Mean SE Median Range 13 6.7 11 2-25 13*'g 1.2 12 1-31 13e,g 2.3 8 1-37 2.6 6 1-36 2b>c,d,f,g 0.8 1 1-21 (a-h) comparison for each longest job category using student's t, p < .05 Secretary1 (N = 7) 46* 1.7 44 42-54 24.1 1.2 23.4 21-30 20d'* 3.7 20 2-33 Supervisor/ Mgmt8 (N =15) 4gb,c,d,e 1.7 50 33-59 28.3 1.9 27.1 16-47 22b,c,d 3.3 26 1-37 Waste Operator11 (N = 3) 53b,c,e 2.3 52 49-57 26.9 2.4 25.8 23-32 11 6.8 8 1-24 O O P CO p p 3M EPI-0006 Page 66 of 85 Table 18. Number (and percent) o f demographic characteristics by longest job categories o f all participant employees (N = 187) in chemical Gender* Male Female Cell Chemical Operator3 Operator11 (N = 3)______ (N = 77) N (%) 3(100) 0(0) N (%) 68 (88) 9(12) Engineer/ Labc (N = 31) N (%) 23 (74) 8(26) Maintenance*1 (N = 20) N (%) 20(100.00) 0 (0.00) Mill Supervisor/ Operator6 Secretary1 Mgmt8 (N = 26)______ (N = 7)______ (N= 15) N (%) 21(81) 5(19) N (%) 0 (0.00) 7 (100.00) N (%) 12 (80) 3(20) Waste Operator11 (N = 3) N (%) 3(100) 0(0) Only Worked in Chemical* Yes No 1(33) 2(67) 33 (43) 44 (57) 21(68) 10 (32) 10 (50) 10 (50) 24 (921 2(8) 3(43) 4(57) 7(47) 8(53) 0 (0.00) 3(100.00) Hand to Mouth Contact* Yes No 3(100) 0(0) 56 (75) 19(25) 14 (45) 17(55) 14 (70) 6(30) 22 (85) 4(15) 4(57) 3(43) 6(40) 9(60) 3(100) 0(0) Wash Hands Always Less Frequently 2(67) 1(33) 63 (84) 12(16) 20 (65) 11 (35) 17 (85) 3(15) * Significantly different percentages by longest job categories, chi square, p < .05 22 (85) 4(15) 4(57) 3(43) 9(60) 6(40) 2(67) 1(33) 001345 3M EPI-0006 Page 67 of 85 Table 19. Mean, range, geometric mean and 95% confidence interval o f geometric mean o f serum fluorochemicals by longest job categories among participants (N = 187) in chemical PFOS Mean Range Cell Operator" (N = 3) Chemical Operator1* (N = 77) 1.298 0.700-2.260 2.008 0.093-7.880 Engineer/ Lab' (N = 31) Maintenance*1 (N = 20) Mill Operator' (N = 26) 0.486 0.081 -1.740 2.162 0.291 -10.600 0.628 0.052-2.040 Secretary1 (N = 7) Supervisor/ Mgmt8 (N = 15) 0.370 0.129-1.140 0.740 0.091 -2.090 Waste Operator1* (N = 3) 2.388 0.254 - 4.840 G. Mean 9 5 % C.I. PFHS Mean Range G. Mean 9 5 % C.I. 1.139^ 0.571-2.274 1.638** ** 1.385-1.936 0.313*'b,d,',g'h 0.224-0.436 1.450**** 0.988-2.128 0.508b'c,d,h 0.386-0.669 0 291 0.176-0.480 0.543b'c,d 0.350-0.842 1.365c,''f 0.245 - 7.600 0.762 0.381 - 1.200 0.522 0.009-1.880 0.106 1.005-0.420 0.686c'd,e'f'g 0.359c'<u,ffg 0.358- 1.314 0.292-0.441 0.061"'M 0.041-0.091 0.340 0.023-1.250 0i92*Ac,e,tg 0.120-0.309 0.080 0.001-0.374 0.052",b,d 0.035-0.078 0.067 0.027-0.172 0.164 0.010-0.445 0.056a,b,d 0.036-0.088 0.095"'bd 0.050-0.182 0.256 0.038-0.562 0.153 0.033 - 0.703 POAA Mean Range G. Mean 9 5 % C.I. 0.578 0.470 - 0.749 0.566bc,f' 0.428 - 0.749 2.231 0.052-6.760 0.246 0.024-1.000 1.863a,c'd'f'g 1.592-2.180 0.170a,b'd,',h 0.124-0.235 1.636 0.211-4.680 1 147b.c.tg 0.780- 1.686 1.203 0.015-2.340 0.985b'ctg 0.686- 1.413 0.138 0.053-0.261 0.496 0.021 - 1.790 2.219 0.936-3.680 0 i21a,btd,c,h 0.080-0.184 0.250b,d'eh 0.131-0.480 1.915c'tg 0.881-4.166 PFOSAA Mean Range G. Mean 9 5 % C.I. 0.019 0.001-0.051 0.006 0.001 -0.056 0.035 0.001-0.269 0.01 lcf'8 0.008-0.016 0.010 0.001-0.073 0.004b,d'e 0.002-0.006 0.033 0.001-0.125 0.014c,g 0.007 - 0.027 0.021 0.003 - 0.049 0.016cf,e 0.012-0.022 0.001 0.001-0.004 0.00 lw * 0.001-0.002 0.007 0.001-0.019 0.004b,d,e 0.002-0.007 0.008 0.003-0.016 0.006 0.002-0.016 M570 Mean Range G. Mean 9 5 % C.I. 0.064 0.001-0.169 0.027b,d 0.004-0.164 0.259 0.009-3.100 0.050 0.004-0.164 0.129"'c,''f'8 0.099-0.169 0.036bd 0.026-0.049 0.242 0.038-0.701 0.045 0.023-0.115 0.186"-c,eig 0.042b,d 0.131-0.263 0.037 - 0.048 0.031 0.010-0.072 0.026bd 0.015-0.042 0.067 0.013-0.201 0.05 lbd 0.035-0.076 0.104 0.053-0.159 0.094 0.050-0.177 9frCT00 Table 19. (continued) PFOSA Mean Range G. Mean 9 5 % C.I. 0.008 0.001-0.015 0.004 0.001-0.031 0.079 0.001-0.487 0.017c>g 0.011-0.026 0.011 0.001-0.063 0.003b,d'e 0.002-0.006 0.087 0.001-0.612 0.012cg 0.005 - 0.029 M556 Mean Range G. Mean 9 5 % C.I. 0.013 0.003 - 0.035 0.006b,d'h 0.001 -0.034 0.074 0.001 -0.380 0.012 0.002 - 0.040 0 042*-ceig 0.008b,d,h 0.033-0.055 0.006-0.011 0.093 0.008-0.406 0.054"'c'e,f'g 0.034-0.086 (a-h) comparison for each longest job category using student's t, p < .05 001347 3M EPI-0006 Page 68 of 85 0.029 0.010-0.204 0.017'-* 0.011-0.025 0.021 0.003-0.080 0.013* 0.006-0.028 0.021 0.001 -0.173 0.014 0.005 - 0.027 0.003bd-'f 0.001-0.007 0.012 0.005-0.029 0.014 0.002 - 0.045 0.011M 0.008-0.014 0.012 0.003 - 0.030 0.008b,d'h 0.004-0.017 0.019 0.003 - 0.059 0.013bd 0.007 - 0.021 0.067 0.010-0.157 0.037*-c'r 0.008-0.180 3M EPI-0006 Page 69 of 85 Table 20. Mean, range, geometric mean and 95% confidence interval o f geometric mean o f serum fluorochemicals o f all participants (N = 187) who currently work in only one building/area in chemical Bldg. 1 (N=23) Bldgs. 2/49 (N=12) Bldg. 3 (N=30) Bldg. 4MX (N=20) Bldg. 4N (N=5) Waste water (N=4) PFOS Mean Range 0.686 0.081 -2.190 2.257 0.325 - 6.840 2.426 0.189-7.260 0.556 0.052-1.620 2.000 1.440-2.670 2.763 0.254 - 7.880 G. Mean 95% C.I. PFHS Mean Range 0.438 0.281 -0.681 0.194 0.013-0.713 1.727 1.023-2.916 0.870 0.076- 1.880 2.000 1.544-2.590 0.567 0.139-1.860 0.468 0.336 - 0.653 0.079 0.001-0.374 1.937 1.378-2.723 0.450 0.161-0.832 1.369 0.136- 13.741 0.386 0.038- 1.210 G. Mean 95% C.I. POAA Mean Range 0.101 0.059-0.173 0.426 0.024-2.700 0.585 0.292-1.171 1.807 0.126-3.640 0.417 0.309-0.561 2.665 0.261-6.760 0.050 0.030-0.084 1.176 0.015-2.110 0.397 0.192-0.821 2.088 1.300-2.860 0.177 0.018-1.729 1.804 0.936-2.710 G. Mean 95% C.I. PFOSAA Mean Range 0.200 0.119-0.331 0.010 0.001 -0.054 1.247 0.631-2.461 0.008 0.001 -0.051 2.111 1.587-2.809 0.049 0.002-0.269 0.927 0.568-1.515 0.021 0.002-0.049 2.024 1.420-2.886 0.019 0.004 - 0.043 1.677 0.815-3.452 0.010 0.003-0.017 G. Mean 95% C.I. M570 Mean Range 0.002 0.002 - 0.006 0.077 0.006-0.410 0.003 0.001 -0.007 0.043 0.010-0.169 0.020 0.012-0.034 0.481 0.063-3.100 0.015 0.010-0.024 0.040 0.024-0.613 0.011 0.003-0.048 0.099 0.054-0.205 0.007 0.002-0.031 0.091 0.050-0.159 G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.050 0.033 - 0.075 0.031 0.018-0.052 0.348 0.260-0.465 0.039 0.035-0.044 0.088 0.047-0.165 0.081 0.034-0.195 001348 001349 Table 20. (continued) PFOSA Mean Range 0.018 0.0005-0.161 G. Mean 95% C.I. M556 Mean Range 0.005 0.003-0.010 0.021 0.003-0.127 G. Mean 95% C.I. Years in chemical Mean 0.013 0.008-0.020 20 0.006 0.0005-0.021 0.003 0.002 - 0.006 0.013 0.003 - 0.347 0.010 0.006-0.017 19 0.109 0.003 - 0.569 0.037 0.020 - 0.066 0.121 0.024-0.380 0.095 0.073-0.125 10 3M EPI-0006 Page 70 of 85 0.028 0.0005 - 0.204 0.017 0.010 - 0.028 0.251 0.003 - 0.487 0.059 0.002-1.595 0.011 0.002 - 0.030 0.010 0.007-0.013 0.076 0.025-0.175 0.057 0.019-0.163 3 13 0.007 0.002-0.011 0.006 0.002-0.019 0.055 0.015-0.157 0.033 0.006-0.193 13 3M EPI-0006 Page 71 of 85 Table 21 Mean, range, geometric mean and 95% confidence interval o f geometric mean for all participants (N = 187) who said they have only worke in one building/area in chemical PFOS Mean Range G. Me a n 9 5 % C.I. PFHS Mean Range G. Mea n 9 5 % C.I. POAA Mean Range G. Me a n 9 5 % C.I. PFOSAA Mean Range G. Me a n 9 5 % C.I. M570 Mean Range G. M e a n Bldg. 1 (N =11) 0.432 0.081-1.700 0.282 0.150-0.529 0.100 0.013-0.42 0.058 0.027-0.124 0.155 0.024-0.386 0.115 0.064-0.201 0.003 0.001-0.011 0.002 0.001-0.003 0.062 0.02- 0.201 0.041 Bldg. 3 (N = 8) 2.693 1.450-5.120 2.427 1.619-3.638 0.890 0.151-1.860 0.578 0.236-1.420 2.947 0.366-6.760 2.079 0.923-4.681 0.027 0.005-0.118 0.014 0.005-0.036 0.308 0.03-0.480 0.270 Bldg. 4 M X (N=17) 0.501 0.052-0.383 0.467 0.321-0.681 0.053 0.01-0.152 0.045 0.026-0.076 0.987 0.015-1.850 0.817 0.467-1.429 0.023 0.003 - 0.049 0.017 0.011-0.026 0.044 0.026-0.061 0.045 00135 001351 Table 21. (continued) 9 5 % C.I. PFOSA Mean Range G. Mea n 9 5 % C.I. M556 Mean Range G. M e a n 9 5 % C.I. Years in chemical Mean 0.021-0.080 0.013 0.0005-0.060 0.006 0.002 - 0.016 0.017 0.04-0.059 0.012 0.006 - 0.023 20 0.158-0.462 0.035-0.057 0.151 0.003 - 0.569 0.059 0.013-0.266 0.095 0.05-0.214 0.080 0.047-0.136 17 0.031 0.0005-0.204 0.018 0.009-0.036 0.013 0.06- 0.022 0.014 0.009-0.021 1.3 3M EPI-0006 Page 72 of 85 3M EPI-0006 Page 73 of 85 Table 22. Mean, median and range, by gender, of chemical operators and engineer/lab for random sample by age, BMI and years worked in chemical Age Mean Median Range Chemical Operators Female Male 41.3 40 28-61 42.4 44 25-62 Engineer/Lab Female Male 36.0 35 23-54 42.7 43 27-58 BMI Mean Median Range 26.9 27.4 22.0-32.7 28.6 28.4 20.2-47.5 24.0 22.2 20.7-30.2 29.0 28.2 18.5-38. Years Worked In Chemical Mean Median Range 9.6 10.5 3-20 11.4 10.0 1-31 9.6 1.3 1-33 16.5 15.0 1-37 001352 3M EPI-0006 Page 74 of 85 Table 23. Mean, range, geometric mean and 95% confidence interval o f geometric mean o f serum fluorochemicals by gender for random sample chemical plant employees whose current job was chemical operator or engineer/lab PFOS Mean Range Chemical Operators Female (N = 10) Male (N = 37) 1.183 0.471-2.380 1.943 0.490-7.260 Engineer/Lab Female (N = 6) Male (N= 17) 0.167 0.101-0.281 0.799 0.095- 1.740 G. Mean 95% C.I. PFHS Mean Range 1.051* 0.764-1.447 0.190* 0.071-0.404 1.625 1.345- 1.962 0.492 0.134-1.860 0.157* 0.115-0.214 0.032 0.005-0.081 0.540 0.336-0.868 0.220 0.018-0.905 G. Mean 95% C.I. POAA Mean Range 0.167* 0.119-0.235 1.342* 0.150-2.110 0.364 0.285 - 0.465 2.497 0.745-6.760 0.023* 0.011-0.048 0.103 0.035-0.300 0.121 0.069-0.210 0.473 0.051 -2.320 G. Mean 95% C.I. PFOSAA Mean Range 0.129* 0.701-1.818 0.012 0.001-0.109 2.168 1.829-2.570 0.041 0.001-0.269 0.078* 0.043-0.141 0.004 0.001-0.018 0.295 0.186-0.468 0.017 0.001 - 0.073 G. Mean 95% C.I. M570 Mean Range 0.006 0.002-0.016 0.114 0.029-0.357 0.013 0.008-0.022 - 0.260 0.009 - 0.992 0.002 0.001 -0.005 0.046 0.020-0.093 0.008 0.004 - 0.084 0.084 0.008-0.410 G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.087 0.055-0.139 0.146 0.099-0.217 0.039 0.024 - 0.064 0.053 0.033 -0.084 001353 00135 Table 23. (continued) PFOSA Mean Range G. Mean 95% C.I. M556 Mean Range G. Mean 95% C.I. * p < 0.05 0.063 0.003-0.315 0.022 0.007-0.062 0.041 0.007- 0 . 18 0.027 0.014-0.050 0.109 0.001 -0.487 0.030 0.016-0.055 0.083 0.001-0.380 0.050 0.035 - 0.073 3M EPI-0006 Page 75 of 85 0.017 0.0005 - 0.063 0.005 0.001 -0.024 0.010 0.003-0.027 0.007 0.004-0.014 0.017 0.0005 - 0.060 0.004 0.002-0.010 0.022 0.002-0.127 0.010 0.006-0.019 3M EPI-0006 Page 76 o f 85 Table 24. Distribution of film plant participants: random sample, volunteers and all participants Random Sample Film Plant Volunteers All Participants Have worked only in film plant 42 14 56 (Have worked on D-l maker) (6) (1) (7) (Have not worked on D-1 maker) (36) (13) (49) Work in film plant with previous work in chemical 18 2 20 Total 60 16 76 001355 3M EPI-0006 Page 77 of 85 Table 25. Demographic characteristics of random sample (N = 60) of film plant employees including subsets: employees with only film plant experience; employees known to have worked on D-l Maker; and employees with prior chemical history Age Mean SE Median Range All (N = 60) 46 1.1 47 23-59 Only Film (N = 36) 44 1.5 46 23-59 D-l Maker (N = 6) 46 3.6 48 30-55 Film w/ history of chemical (N = 18) 48 2.1 51 28-58 BMI Mean SE Median Range 28.0 0.6 27.8 18.0-41.8 28.2 0.8 27.8 18.0-41.8 26.9 1.9 27.5 21.7-31.7 28.0 1.1 27.6 20.0-37.9 Years worked In film Mean SE Median Range Gender Female Male Current job Engineer/Lab Film processor Maintenance Administrative Longest job Engineer/Lab Film processor Maintenance Administrative Hand to mouth contact Yes No Wash hands Yes No 13.7 10.0 14 0.1-36.0 11 (18) 49 (82) 16 (27) 23 (38) 10 (17) 11 (18) 13 (22) 26 (43) 11 (18) 10 (17) 37 (62) 23 (38) 50 (83) 10 (17) 13.7 1.7 14 0.1-29 6 (17) 30 (83) 10 (28) 12 (33) 7 (19) 7 (19) 7 (19) 15 (42) 8 (22) 6 (17) 26 (72) 10 (28) 28 (78) 8 (22) 9.2 4.1 6 1-21 1 (17) 5 (83) 0 (0) 5 (83) 1 (17) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (83) 1 (17) 0 (0) 4 (67) 2 (33) 6 (100) 0 (0) 15.4 2.4 16 1-36 4 (22) 14 (78) 6 (33) 6 (33) 2 (11) 4 (22) 6 (33) 6 (33) 2 (ID 4 (22) 7 (39) 11 (61) 16 (89) 2 (ID 001356 3M EPI-0006 Page 78 of 85 Table 26. Mean, range, geometric mean and 95% confidence interval o f geometric mean for random sample of film plant employees by work history: only film, D -l Maker or film with prior chemical work history Film with previous Only Film3 D-l Makerb history in chemical0 (N = 35)______________ (N = 6)__________ (N = 18) PFOS Mean Range 0.122 0.032-0.250 0.367 0.122-0.946 0.212 0.080-0.692 G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.110bc 0.094-0.129 0.2893 0.159-0.527 0.178a 0.137-0.233 PFHS Mean Range 0.015 0.001-0.075 0.023 0.005 - 0.030 0.038 0.007-0.210 G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.010c 0.008-0.014 0.020 0.011-0.034 0.023a 0.015-0.036 POAA Mean Range 0.052 0.006-0.298 0.122 0.020-0.197 0.090 0.012-0.246 G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.037b,c 0.028-0.049 0.0933 0.044-0.196 0.0673 0.044-0.100 PFOSAA Mean Range 0.003 0.001 -0.009 0.006 0.001 - 0.022 0.005 0.001 -0.038 G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.002 0.002-0.003 0.004 0.022 - 0.009 0.003 0.002 - 0.005 M570 Mean Range 0.022 0.0008 - 0.454 0.018 0.0021 -0.053 0.018 0.0014-0.069 G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.007 0.005-0.010 0.010 0.006-0.017 0.010 0.004 - 0.026 M556 Mean Range 0.022 0.0001-0.307 0.005 0.001-0.014 All values < LOQ G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.003 0.001 -0.006 0.003 0.002 - 0.004 (a-c) comparison for each current job category using student's t, p < .05 001357 3M EPI-0006 Page 79 of 85 Table 27. Ratio of fluorochemical levels by random sample of film employees including subsets: employees only with film plant experience; employees known to have worked on D-l Maker; and employees with prior chemical history Only Film D-l Maker (N = 36)____________(N = 6) Film With Previous History In Chemical (N = 18) PFOS/PFHS Mean Median Range 14.9 10.4 1.8-107.6 18.8 12.7 5.0-46.6 9.3 7.4 3.3-32.0 PFOS/POAA Mean Median Range 3.3 2.8 0.7 - 9.2 5.7 2.4 0.9-21.0 3.2 2.3 1.2-10.1 PFOS/Analytes Mean Median Range 10.0 7.8 0.2-37.6 25.6 11.5 2.1-91.8 12.6 10.3 3.0-40.7 PFOSAA/M556 Mean Median Range 1.9 1.0 0.003 -14.0 2.8 1.3 0.3 -10.9 2.1 1.2 0.4-15.1 M570/M556 Mean Median Range 5.0 2.3 0.3-45.0 6.9 3.4 0.8-28.2 7.1 4.5 0.6-27.6 001358 3M EPl-0006 Page 80 of 85 Table 28. Demographic characteristics of random sample of film plant employees by current job categories who have worked only in the film plant (i.e., not on the D-l Maker or prior work in chemical) Age Mean SE Median Range BMI Mean SE Median Range Years worked In film Mean SE Median Range Gender Female Male Hand to mouth Contact Yes No Wash hands Yes No Engineer/Lab (N = 10) 46 2.8 48 23-58 26.8 1.5 27.3 21.6-31.7 14.8 2.9 15 0.1-29 2 (20) 8 (80) 8 (80) 2 (20) 8 (80) 2 (20) Film Processor (N = 12) 44 2.5 47 27-59 28.6 1.4 27.8 18.0-41.8 14.1 2.6 17 0.5 - 29 2 (17) 10 (83) 10 (83) 2 (17) 10 (83) 2 (17) Maintenance (N = 7) 40 3.3 40 31-51 Administrative (N = 7) 48 3.3 50 40-55 28.7 1.8 29.5 24.1 -3 2 .9 29.2 1.8 27.9 24.4-41.8 4.6 3.4 3 0.5-12 0 (0) 7 (100) 20.4 3.4 25 5-28 2 (29) 5 (71) 4 (57) 3 (43) 6 (86) 1 (14) 4 (57) 3 (43) 4 (57) 3 (43) 001359 3M EPI-0006 Page 81 of 85 Table 29. Mean, range, geometric mean and 95% confidence interval o f geometric mean of serum fluorochemicals for random sample of employees who have only worked in the film plant (i.e., not on the D -l Maker or prior work in chemical) PFOS Mean Range G. Mean 95% C.I. PFHS Mean Range G. Mean 95% C.I. POAA Mean Range G. Mean 95% C.I. PFOSAA Mean Range G. Mean 95% C.I. M570 Mean Range G. Mean 95% C.I. M556 Mean Range G. Mean 95% C.I. Engineer/Laba (N = 10) 0.097 0.055-0.140 0.093 0.074-0.116 0.016 0.001-0.075 0.009 0.005-0.018 0.030 0.006 - 0.055 0.022 0.014-0.036 0.002 0.001 -0.005 0.002 0.001-0.003 0.006 0.002-0.017 0.005 0.004 - 0.007 0.002 0.0001 -0.003 0.00l b 0.001 -0.003 Film Processorb (N = 12) 0.127 0.032-0.250 0.106 0.074-0.154 0.015 0.004-0.047 0.011 0.007-0.017 0.055 0.007-0.154 0.041 0.024 - 0.068 0.002 0.001 -0.009 0.002 0.001 -0.003 0.048 0.003 - 0.454 0.010 0.004 - 0.022 0.029 0.003 - 0.307 0.0053 0.002 - 0.011 Maintenance0 (N = 7) 0.159 0.137-0.216 0.157a 0.139-0.177 0.016 0.001 -0.034 0.011 0.005-0.026 0.098 0.021-0.298 0.071a 0.038-0.132 0.002 0.001 -0.006 0.002 0.001-0.003 0.018 0.006 - 0.046 0.014a,d 0.009 - 0.024 0.005 0.001-0.016 0.004 0.002 - 0.007 Administratived (N = 7) 0.111 0.054-0.166 0.104 0.077-0.140 0.012 0.006 - 0.033 0.010 0.006-0.016 0.039 0.017-0.063 0.035 0.024-0.051 0.004 0.001 -0.006 0.004 0.002 - 0.006 0.005 0.001-0.009 0.004 0.002 - 0.007 0.002 0.001 -0.003 0.002 0.002 - 0.003 (a-d) comparisons for each current job category using student's t 001360 3M EPI-0006 Page 82 of 85 Table 30. Ratio of fluorochemical levels by current job among random sample of film employees who only have worked in film and not on the D-l Maker PFOS/PFHS Mean Median Range Engineer/Lab (N = 10) Film Processor (N = 12) Maintenance (N = 7) Administrative (N = 7) 13.0 7.5 1.8-61.6 13.0 12.8 4.9-29.0 24.6 12.2 4.3-107.6 11.1 10.4 5.1-16.5 PFOS/POAA Mean Median Range 4.0 3.0 1.3-9.2 3.2 3.2 1.2-6.3 2.7 2.1 0.7-6.7 3.0 2.8 2.2-4.2 PFOS/Analytes Mean Median Range 10.4 10.5 2.1-17.8 10.0 4.3 0.2-31.2 7.1 7.0 4.0-11.6 12.4 9.5 5.2-37.6 PFOSAA/M556 Mean Median Range 3.6 1.1 0.5-14.0 0.7 0.5 0.003-1.5 1.3 0.5 0.1 -6 .1 2.1 2.3 0.5-4.4 M570/M556 Mean Median Range 8.6 2.5 1.0-45.0 3.1 1.6 0.6-18.4 5.6 5.9 0.4-10.5 2.6 2.8 0.3-5.5 001361 3M EPI-0006 Page 83 of 85 Table 31. Demographic characteristics of all film plant participants (N = 76) by only film plant, D-l Maker or film plant with previous history in chemical Age Mean SE Median Range All (N = 76) 45 1.0 47 23-59 Only Film (N = 49) 44 3.6 45 23-59 D-l Maker (N = 7) 44 1.2 47 30 - 5 5 Film w/ history of chemical (N = 20) 47 2.1 51 28-58 BMI Mean SE Median Range 28.3 0.5 27.9 18.0-41.8 28.5 0.6 27.9 18.0-41.8 26.6 1.5 26.5 21.7-31.7 28.5 1.0 28.0 20.0-37.9 Years worked In film Mean SE Median Range 14.4 1.2 16.0 0.1-36.0 15.2 1.4 17.0 0.1-30 8.1 3.5 2.0 1 -21 14.6 2.5 15.0 1-36 Gender Female Male 16 (21) 60 (79) 8 (16) 41 (84) 2 (29) 5 (71) 6 (30) 14 (70) Current job Engineer/Lab Film processor Maintenance Administrative 18 (24) 34 (45) 11 (14) 13 (17) 12 (25) 20 (41) 8 (16) 9 (18) 0 (0) 6 (86) 1 (14) 0 (0) 6 (30) 8 (40) 2 (10) 4 (20) Longest job Engineer/Lab Film processor Maintenance Administrative 14 (18) 38 (50) 12 (16) 12 (16) 8 (16) 24 (49) 9 (18) 8 (16) 0 (0) 6 (86) 1 (14) 0 (0) 6 (30) 8 (40) 2 (10) 4 (20) Hand to mouth contact Yes No 49 (64) 27 (36) 36 (73) 13 (27) 5 (71) 2 (29) 8 (40) 12 (60) Wash hands Yes No 65 (86) 11 (14) 40 (82) 9 (18) 7 (100) 0 (0) 18 2 001362 (90) (10) 3M EPI-0006 Page 84 of 85 Table 32. Mean, range, geometric mean and 95% confidence interval of geometric mean o f serum fluorochemicals for all film plant participant employees by work history: only film plant, DM aker or film plant with previous history in chemical PFOS Mean Range Only Film3 (N = 49) 0.129 0.032 - 0.264 D-I Makerb (N = 7) 0.347 0.122-0.946 Film with previous history in chemicaP (N = 20) 0.220 0.080-0.692 G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.116be 0.101-0.133 0.2793 0.168-0.461 0.1853 0.144-0.238 PFHS Mean Range 0.016 0.001-0.075 0.022 0.005 - 0.030 0.038 0.007-0.210 G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.01 Ie 0.009-0.014 0.019 0.012-0.030 0.0243 0.016-0.036 POAA Mean Range 0.057 0.006 - 0.298 0.146 0.020-0.290 0.146 0.012- 1.220 G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.040b,c 0.031 -0.051 0.109a 0.054-0.221 0.0783 0.049-0.124 PFOSAA Mean Range 0.003 0.001 - 0.020 0.006 0.001 - 0.022 0.006 0.001-0.038 G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.004 0.002 - 0.003 0.004 0.002-0.009 0.003 0.002 - 0.005 M570 Mean Range 0.018 0.001 -0.454 0.039 0.002-0.164 0.017 0.001 - 0.069 G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.007 0.005 - 0.009 0.015 0.005-0.046 0.010 0.006-0.016 M556 Mean Range 0.009 0.0001 -0.307 0.006 0.001-0.015 All values < LOQ G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.003 0.002 - 0.004 0.004 0.002 - 0.008 (a-c) comparison for each current job category using student's t, p < .05 001363 3M EPI-0006 Page 85 of 85 Table 33. Mean, range, geometric mean and 95% confidence interval of geometric mean of serum fluorochemicals for all film plant participant employees who only worked in film plant (i.e., not on the D-l Maker or worked previously in chemical) PFOS Mean Range Engineer/Laba (N = 12) 0.108 0.055-0.170 Film Processor11 (N = 20) 0.133 0.032 - 0.264 Maintenancec (N = 8) 0.168 0.137-0.237 Administrative11 (N = 9) 0.108 0.054-0.166 G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.102c 0.082-0.127 0.114 0.088-0.148 0.1 65m 0.143-0.191 0.103c 0.081 -0.129 PFHS Mean Range 0.018 0.001-0.075 0.016 0.004 - 0.052 0.016 0.001 -0.034 0.012 0.006 - 0.033 G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.011 0.006-0.012 0.012 0.009-0.017 0.011 0.006 - 0.023 0.010 0.007-0.015 POAA Mean Range 0.049 0.006-0.188 0.055 0.007-0.154 0.095 0.021-0.298 0.037 0.017-0.063 G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.03l c 0.017-0.054 0.040 0.027 - 0.060 0.072a 0.042-0.124 0.033 0.025 - 0.046 PFOSAA Mean Range 0.002 0.001-0.005 0.005 0.001 - 0.020 0.004 0.001-0.017 0.004 0.001-0.006 G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.002 0.001-0.003 0.003 0.002 - 0.005 0.002 0.001 - 0.005 0.003 0.002 - 0.005 M570 Mean Range 0.006 0.002-0.017 0.031 0.002 - 0.454 0.017 0.006 - 0.046 0.005 0.001 -0.009 G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.005 0.003-0.007 0.008 0.005-0.013 0.014 0.009 - 0.022 0.004 0.002-0.006 M556 Mean Range 0.002 0.0001 -0.007 0.019 0.001 -0.307 0.005 0.001-0.016 0.003 0.001-0.006 G. Mean 95% C.I. 0.00 l b 0.001 -0.003 0.004a 0.002 - 0.006 0.014 0.002 - 0.007 0.002 0.002 - 0.003 (a-c) comparisons for each current job category using student's t, p < .05 001364 Appendix A Decatur Plant Maps Appendix A Page 1 001365 to river water pum p house 3M Decatur, Alabama Plant Layout Revised 9/16/97 to Finley Island Road Fgps 88888 g 46 parking to Finley Island Road 3M If^QO 1 5 o8 o corridor m 08 as Un QIO Banding 1 ' parkm& 1 O m aaw contractor gate and parking : . |sv;. I par.k.ing V:iitafta F J l | i l 3; C/l l l i S i parking Cfl vO fct / \| \ ta Dyneon Avenue B H |I J i N 35 0 21c t Nebo / iJ CL w fire training Lane / * "S n scale - 1 inch = 470 feet = .09 miles tostate Docks Road I-- T -- 99CT00 Appendix A ?ge 2 Appendix A Page 3 001367 3M Decatur Chemical Plant 3M Chemical ^ A^ ^ \3v*v*v CT*f31l a Dyneon parking parking V3i S s \ \ \ V\ V. \ \ V\ l \ \ \ Appendix B Study Questionnaire Appendix B Page 1 001368 DECATUR EMPLOYEE QUESTIONNAIRE Appendix B Page 2 Thank you for participating in this research study. Please respond to each question with either a short answer or an `x ' in the appropriate box. N A M E _____________________________________ EMPLOYEE NUMBER______________ 1. Have you ever worked in the Chemical Plant? Yes No If no, please go to question 2 If 'yes' a. How many years have you worked in the chemical plant? Years=____________ b. W hat year did you start working in the chemical plant? Year = _____________ 2. Please indicate if you have ever worked in the following areas. Mark an `x ' in all boxes that apply to you. Building 1 Buildings 38 and/or 51 Buildings 2 and/or 49 Building 42 (Packaging FC inerts) Building 3 (O SC L/O SF area) Building 61 Building 3 (besides OSCL/OSF area) Film Plant (all buildings) Building 4 North Building 4 millroom/extruder Building 17 Wastewater treatment plant (Buildings 36 and 57) Other fPlease SDecifvl 3. Thinking about the job that you worked for the longest period of time while employed at 3M Decatur, please answer the following questions. a. Job title:_______________________________________ b. When did you work there: From______ (year) to___________ (year) c. Average number of hours per week on this job? Hours =_________ d. When you worked overtime, what was your usual job assignment?_________________________ 4. Please answer the following questions regarding your current job. Current plant: Chemical Film Other Current job title:________________________________________________________________________ W hat year did you start working in this current job: Year = __________ 001369 Appendix B Page 3 Average number of hours per week on this job: Hours = ____ When you work overtime, what is your usual job assignment? 5. Please indicate in which area(s) you work in your current job. Mark an 'x' in all boxes that apply to you. Building 1 Buildings 38 and/or 51 Buildings 2 and/or 49- Building 42 (Packaging FC Inerts) Building 3 (O SC L/O SF area) Building 61 Building 3 (besides OSCL/OSF area) Film Plant (all buildings) Building 4 North Building 4 millroom/extruder Building 17 Wastewater treatment plant (Buildings 36 and 57) Other /Please soeciM 6. While at work, do you chew gum? always frequently sometimes rarely never 7. While at work, do you chew tobacco? a. always frequently sometimes rarely never 8. While at work, do you smoke cigarettes? always frequently sometimes rarely never 9. How frequently do you wash your hands before eating while at work? Mark only one box. always frequently sometimes rarely never 10. What is your height? 11. What is your weight Feet = ________Inches = ________ Pounds = ____________ 001370 Appendix C Page 1 Appendix C Distribution of Fluorochemicals and Their Natural Log Transformation Among Chemical Employees(N = 126) in the Random Sample 001371 Chemical Plant Random Sample _______ PFOS ppm '1D1-11 3- Appendix C Page 2 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Q u a n tiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% 10.600 10.600 7.187 3.132 1.925 1.140 0.440 0.215 0.102 0.091 0.091 M om ents Mean Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 95% Mean N S u m Weights 1.5047 1.6122 0.1436 1.7890 1.2204 126.0000 126.0000 T e st for N orm ality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.734399 0.0000 001372 Chemical Plant Random Sample Appendix C Page 3 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Q u a n tiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% 2.3609 2.3609 1.9720 1.1415 0.6549 0.1310 -0.8215 -1.5388 -2.2793 -2.3936 -2.3936 Mean M om ents Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 9 5 % Mean N S u m Weights -0.0605 1.0263 0.0914 0.1204 -0.2415 126.0000 126.0000 T e st for N orm ality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.967746 0.0521 001373 Chemical Plant Random Sample PFHS ppm Appendix C Page 4 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Q u an tiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% 1.8800 1.8800 1.7865 0.8777 0.4200 0.1700 0.0784 0.0334 0.0137 0.0054 0.0054 M om ents Mean Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % M ean Lower 95% Mean N S u m Weights 0.3450 0.4117 0.0367 0.4176 0.2724 126.0000 126.0000 T e st for N orm ality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.729906 0.0000 001374 Chemical Plant Random Sample Appendix C Page 5 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.6313 0.6313 0.5802 -0.1307 -0.8675 -1.7720 -2.5461 -3.4007 -4.3022 -5.2269 -5.2269 Moments Mean Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 95 % Mean N S u m Weights -1.7152 1.2225 0.1089 -1.4996 -1.9307 126.0000 126.0000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.975283 0.2302 001375 Chemical Plant Random Sample Appendix C Page 6 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% 6.7600 6.7600 5.6618 3.4300 2.0725 1.3000 0.3860 0.1281 0.0514 0.0209 0.0209 Mean Moments Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 95% Mean N S u m Weights 1.5363 1.3359 0.1190 1.7718 1.3007 126.0000 126.0000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.875366 <.0001 001376 Chemical Plant Random Sample In POAA ppm Appendix C Page 7 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% 1.9110 1.9110 1.7302 1.2318 0.7288 0.2624 -0.9519 -2.0550 -2.9685 -3.8680 -3.8680 Moments Mean Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 9 5 % Mean N S u m Weights -0.1061 1.2545 0.1118 0.1151 -0.3273 126.0000 126.0000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.903769 <.0001 00137*7 Chemical Plant Random Sample Appendix C Page 8 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.26900 0.26900 0.14915 0.06331 0.02812 0.00808 0.00276 0.00112 0.00112 0.00112 0.00112 Moments Mean Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 95% Mean N S u m Weights 0.0233 0.0396 0.0035 0.0303 0.0163 126.0000 126.0000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.600789 0.0000 001378 Chemical Plant Random Sample Appendix C Page 9 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% -1.3130 -1.3130 -1.9045 -2.7609 -3.5721 -4.8184 -5.8916 -6.7944 -6.7944 -6.7944 -6.7944 Moments Mean Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 95% Mean N S u m Weights -4.7813 1.4592 0.1300 -4.5240 -5.0386 126.0000 126.0000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.929527 <.0001 001379 Chemical Plant Random Sample M570 ppm no? - 0.6 - 05 " i maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.99200 0.99200 0.69103 0.41570 0.19425 0.06685 0.03773 0.02173 0.00965 0.00840 0.00840 Moments Mean Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 95% Mean N S u m Weights 0.1505 0.1862 0.0166 0.1833 0.1176 126.0000 126.0000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.712853 0.0000 Appendix C Page 10 001380 Chemical Plant Random Sample In M57Q ppm Appendix C Page 11 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% -0.0080 -0.0080 -0.3701 -0.8780 -1.6387 -2.7053 -3.2774 -3.8310 -4.6406 -4.7795 -4.7795 Moments Mean Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 9 5 % Mean N S u m Weights -2.5145 1.1167 0.0995 -2.3176 -2.7114 126.0000 126.0000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.957094 0.0035 001381 Chemical Plant Random Sample Appendix C Page 12 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.61200 0.61200 0.47948 0.23180 0.05625 0.01195 0.00269 0.00122 0.0050 0.00050 0.00050 Moments Mean Std D e v Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 9 5 % Mean N S u m Weights 0.0618 0.1165 0.0104 0.0823 0.0412 126.0000 126.0000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.580929 0.0000 001382 Chemical Plant Random Sample In PFOSA ppm 0 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% -0.4910 -0.4910 -0.7357 -1.4620 -2.8787 -4.4277 -5.9166 -6.7081 -7.6009 -7.6009 -7.6009 Mean Moments Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 95% Mean N S u m Weights -4.3545 1.9010 0.1694 -4.0193 -4.6896 126.0000 126.0000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.946788 0.0002 Appendix C Page 13 001383 Chemical Plant Random Sample Appendix C Page 14 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.40600 0.40600 0.32165 0.15000 0.05995 0.02615 0.00765 0.00300 0.00175 0.00140 0.00140 Moments Mean Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 95% Mean N S u m Weights 0.0519 0.0737 0.0066 0.0649 0.0389 126.0000 126.0000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.671484 0.0000 001384 Chemical Plant Random Sample In M556 ppm Appendix C Page 15 -7-t maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% -0.9014 -0.9014 -1.1396 -1.8976 -2.8151 -3.6443 -4.8731 -5.8091 -6.3487 -6.5713 -6.5713 Moments Mean Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 95 % Mean N S u m Weights -3.7960 1.3638 0.1215 -3.5556 -4.0365 126.0000 126.0000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.962731 0.0158 001385 Appendix D Page 1 Appendix P Distribution of Fluorochemicals and Their Natural Log Transformation Among Film Plant Employees (N = 60) in the Random Sample 001386 Film Plant Random Sample PFOS ppm 1.0 3 0.9 - u- 07 - 9 0.6 - 0.5 - 103 " 0.3 - B 0.2 - 0.1 - o.o - 1 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.94600 0.94600 0.81265 0.27350 0.20825 0.13750 0.08698 0.06720 0.02393 0.01500 0.01500 Moments Mean Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 9 5 % Mean N S u m Weights 0.17181 0.14780 0.01908 0.20999 0.13363 60.00000 60.00000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.682603 <.0001 Appendix D Page 2 0 0 1 3 8 7V Film Plant Random Sample Appendix D Page 3 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% -0.0555 -0.0555 -0.2197 -1.2965 -1.5712 -1.9841 -2.4421 -2.7002 -3.8019 -4.1997 -4.1997 Moments Mean Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 9 5 % Mean N S u m Weights -1.99622 0.67992 0.08778 -1.82058 -2.17187 60.00000 60.00000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.975227 0.4827 001388 Film Plant Random Sample PFHS ppm Appendix D Page 4 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.21000 0.21000 0.14670 0.04660 0.02660 0.01190 0.00718 0.00565 0.00131 0.00131 0.00131 Moments Mean Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 95% Mean N S u m Weights 0.02258 0.03053 0.00397 0.03053 0.01462 59.00000 59.00000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.578079 0.0000 001389 Film Plant Random Sample Ln PFHS ppm Appendix D Page 5 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% -1.5606 -1.5606 -2.0224 -3.0662 -3.6268 -4.4312 -4.9365 -5.1761 -6.6377 -6.6377 -6.6377 Moments Mean Std Dev Std Error Mea n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 95 % Mean N S u m Weights -4.26780 0.95250 0.12401 -4.01958 -4.51602 59.00000 59.00000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.977452 0.5773 001390 Film Plant Random Sample POAA ppm Appendix D Page 6 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.29800 0.29800 0.27200 0.15400 0.10800 0.05520 0.02400 0.01560 0.00651 0.00598 0.00598 Moments Mean Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 95% Mean N S u m Weights 0.07084 0.06200 0.00807 0.08700 0.05469 59.00000 59.00000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.843094 <.0001 001391 Film Plant Random Sample Appendix D Page 7 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% -1.2107 -1.2107 -1.3065 -1.8708 -2.2256 -2.8968 -3.7297 -4.1605 -5.0377 -5.1193 -5.1193 Moments Mean Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 9 5 % Mean N S u m Weights -3.02097 0.91335 0.11891 -2.78295 -3.25899 59.00000 59.00000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.975823 0.5122 001392 Film Plant Random Sample PFOSAA ppm Appendix D Page 8 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.03780 0.03780 0.02975 0.00635 0.00487 0.00280 0.00112 0.00112 0.00112 0.00112 0.00112 Mean Moments Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 9 5 % Mean N S u m Weights 0.00397 0.00554 0.00072 0.00542 0.00253 59.00000 59.00000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.511689 0.0000 001393 Film Plant Random Sample Appendix D Page 9 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% -3.2754 -3.2754 -3.5529 -5.0593 -5.3247 -5.8781 -6.7944 -6.7944 -6.7944 -6.7944 -6.7944 Moments Mean Std Dev Std Error Mea n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 95% Mean N S u m Weights -5.95844 0.84775 0.11037 -5.73751 -6.17936 59.00000 59.00000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.843132 <.0001 0013S4 Film Plant Random Sample Appendix D Page 10 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.45400 0.45400 0.25193 0.04805 0.01420 0.00690 0.00432 0.00251 0.00112 0.00080 0.00080 Mean Moments Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 95 % Mean N S u m Weights 0.02024 0.05901 0.00762 0.03548 0.00499 60.00000 60.00000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.293209 0.0000 001395 Film Plant Random Sample Appendix D Page 11 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Quantiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% -0.7897 -0.7897 -1.7780 -3.0356 -4.2546 -4.9779 -5.4434 -5.9875 -6.8371 -7.1309 -7.1309 Moments Mean Std D e v Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 9 5 % Mean N S u m Weights -4.79892 1.10619 0.14281 -4.51316 -5.08467 60.00000 60.00000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.948604 0.0263 001396 Film Plant Random Sample Appendix D Page 12 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Q u a n tiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.30700 0.30700 0.15407 0.00593 0.00250 0.00250 0.00250 0.00117 0.00021 0.00010 0.00010 M om ents Mean Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 95% Mean N S u m Weights 0.00816 0.03932 0.00508 0.01832 -0.00200 60.00000 60.00000 Test for Normality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.162266 0.0000 001397 Film Plant Random Sample Appendix 0 Page 13 maximum quartile median quartile minimum Q u an tiles 100.0% 99.5% 97.5% 90.0% 75.0% 50.0% 25.0% 10.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% -1.1809 -1.1809 -2.7418 -5.1284 -5.9915 -5.9915 -5.9915 -6.7632 -8.6336 -9.2103 -9.2103 M om ents Mean Std Dev Std Error M e a n Upper 9 5 % Mean Lower 95% Mean N S u m Weights -5.93097 0.95792 0.12367 -5.68351 -6.17842 60.00000 60.00000 T est for N orm ality Shapiro-Wilk W Test W Prob<W 0.682874 <.0001 001398 Appendix e Page 1 Appendix E Scatterplots and regression equations for fluorochemicals by years worked in chemical (YRSCHEM) for random sample (n = 126) and for current job cateogries (chemical operators, engineer/lab, maintenance, supervisor/mgmt and mill operators) 001399 Random Sample PFOS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 2 tRSCHEM = LiieorFi T erm Intercept YRSCHEM L in e a r Fit P F O S d f p p m = 0.89178 + 0.0478 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.10808 RSquareAdj 0.100887 Root M e a n Square Error 1.528756 M e a n of Response 1.504686 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 126 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 35.11712 35.1171 124 289.79964 2.3371 125 324.91676 F R atio 15.0260 P rob > F 0.0002 E stim ate 0.8917838 0.0478029 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.208682 4.27 0.012332 3.88 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0002 Low er 95% 0.4787397 0.0233943 U pper 95% 1.3048279 0.0722116 001400 Random Sample PFHS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 3 RSCHEW = Lira Fl L in ea r F it PFHSdfjppm = 0.11968 + 0.01757 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.223991 RSquare Adj 0.217733 Root M e a n Square Error 0.364103 M e a n of Response 0.344977 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 126 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 4.744959 4.74496 124 16.438777 0.13257 125 21.183736 F R atio 35.7919 P rob > F <-0001 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.1196844 0.0175716 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.049702 2.41 0.002937 5.98 P ro b > |t| 0.0175 <.0001 Low er 95% 0.02131 0.0117582 U pper 95% 0.2180589 0.023385 001401 Random Sample POAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 4 WSCHEU = Linear FI L in e a r F it P O A A p p m = 1.29399 + 0.0189 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.0246 RSquare Adj 0.016734 Root M e a n Square Error 1.324636 M e a n of Response 1.536271 Observations (or S u m W gts) 126 Source M odel E rror C T otal A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 5 .4 8 7 4 0 5 .4 8 7 4 0 124 2 1 7 .5 7 7 8 5 1 .7 5 4 6 6 125 2 2 3 .0 6 5 2 4 F R atio 3 .1 2 7 3 P rob > F 0 .0 7 9 4 T erm Intercep t YRSCHEM E stim ate 1 .2 9 3 9 9 2 2 0 .0 1 8 8 9 6 4 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0 .1 8 0 8 1 9 7 .1 6 0 .0 1 0 6 8 5 1 .7 7 P ro b > |t| < .0 0 0 1 0 .0 7 9 4 L ow er 95% 0 .9 3 6 0 9 7 9 -0 .0 0 2 2 5 3 U pper 95% 1 .6 5 1 8 8 6 6 0 .0 4 0 0 4 6 001402 Random Sample PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 5 |nii f 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 *0 IRSCHEM = Linea Ft L in e a r Fit P F O S A A d f p p m = 0.03213 - 0.00069 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.0373 RSquare Adj 0.029536 Root M e a n Square Error 0.03898 M e a n of Response 0.023293 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 126 Source M odel E rror C T otal A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.00729999 0.007300 124 0.18840938 0.001519 125 0.19570936 F R atio 4.8044 P rob > F 0.0303 T erm In tercep t YRSCH EM E stim ate 0.0321302 -0.000689 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.005321 6.04 0.000314 -2.19 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0303 Low er 95% 0.0215985 -0.001312 U pper 95% 0.0426619 -0.000067 001403 Random Sample M570 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 6 YRSCHEM = LineiFi Linear Fit M 5 7 0 p p m = 0.1791 - 0.00223 Y R S C H E M Summary of Fit RSquare 0.017688 RSquare Adj 0.009766 Root M e a n Square Error 0.185242 M e a n of Response 0.150471 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 126 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.0766188 0.076619 124 4.2550321 0.034315 125 4.3316509 F R atio 2.2328 P rob > F 0.1376 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.1791 -0.002233 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.025286 7.08 0.001494 -1.49 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.1376 Low er 95% 0.1290506 -0.005191 U pper 95% 0.2291494 0.0007248 001404 0 /0 - Random Sample PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM 0 60 - 0.50 - g 010 - If % a < 0.J0 - s 0.20 - a a a a 0.10 - --T-ie --------- * ------------- " S" : b-- ------1-- >-- ------ 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 50 35 10 "YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 7 = Irai ft L in ea r F it P F O S A d f p p m = 0.06731 - 0.00043 Y R S C H E M S ummary of Fit RSquare 0.001675 RSquare Adj -0.00638 Root M e a n Square Error 0.116893 M e a n of Response 0.061792 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 126 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.0028424 0.002842 124 1.6943378 0.013664 125 1.6971802 F Ratio 0.2080 Prob>F 0.6491 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.0673064 -0.00043 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.015956 4.22 0.000943 -0.46 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.6491 Lower 9 5 % 0.0357238 -0.002296 Upper 9 5 % 0.0988889 0.0014363 001405 Appendix E Page 8 0.50 - Random Sample M556 ppm By YRSCHEM o.io - 0.30 EB. ,Om m 1 2 0.20 - 1 o.io - * 1 a " .... 11-- T _ 0.00 -- | nf r i , 05 -- y I I I-- 7 p -- 10 15 ?0 15 It 35 10 'iRSCHEM = Iren FI T erm Intercept YRSCH EM Source M odel E rror C T otal L in ea r F it M 5 5 6 d f p p m = 0.05953 - 0.00059 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.007918 RSquare Adj -0.00008 Root M e a n Square Error 0.073716 M e a n of Response 0.051941 Observations (or S u m W gts) 126 A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0 .0 0 5 3 7 7 7 6 0 .0 0 5 3 7 8 124 0 .6 7 3 8 2 9 4 1 0 .0 0 5 4 3 4 125 0 .6 7 9 2 0 7 1 7 F R atio 0 .9 8 9 6 P rob > F 0 .3 2 1 8 E stim ate 0 .0 5 9 5 2 5 9 -0 .0 0 0 5 9 2 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0 .0 1 0 0 6 3 5 .9 2 0 .0 0 0 5 9 5 -0 .9 9 P ro b > |t| < .0 0 0 1 0 .3 2 1 8 Low er 95% 0 .0 3 9 6 0 8 9 -0 .0 0 1 7 6 9 U pper 95% 0 .0 7 9 4 4 2 8 0 .0 0 0 5 8 5 4 001406 Random Sample Chemical Operators PFOS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 9 IRSCHEM = Unwfl Linear Fit P F O S d f p p m = 1.41646 + 0.03312 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.060486 RSquare Adj 0.039608 Root M e a n Square Error 1.237904 M e a n of Response 1.781106 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 47 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM Source Model Error C Total DF 1 45 46 E stim ate 1.4164581 0.0331178 A n a ly sis of V arian ce Sum of Squares 4.439524 68.958297 73.397820 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.280181 5.06 0.019457 1.70 M ean Square 4.43952 1.53241 F R atio 2.8971 P rob > F 0.0956 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0956 Low er 95% 0.8521458 -0.006071 U pper 95% 1.9807704 0.0723065 001407 Random Sample Chemical Operators PFHS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 10 RSCHEM = Linea fl Term Intercept YRSCHEM L in ea r Fit P F H S d f p p m = 0.14813 + 0.0254 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.342256 RSquare Adj 0.32764 Root M e a n Square Error 0.333897 M e a n of Response 0.427751 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 47 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 2.6105444 2.61054 45 5.0169158 0.11149 46 7.6274602 F R atio 23.4157 Prob>F <.0001 E stim ate 0.148129 0.0253956 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.075573 1-96 0.005248 4.84 P ro b > |t| 0.0562 <.0001 Low er 95% -0.004082 0.0148254 U pper 95% 0.3003395 0.0359659 001408 Random Sample Chemical Operators POAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 11 Y8SCHEM = Liraft L in e a r Fit P O A A p p m = 1.73387 + 0.04702 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.09937 RSquare Adj 0.079356 Root M e a n Square Error 1.342508 M e a n of Response 2.251574 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 47 Source Model Error C T otal A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 8.948633 8.94863 45 81.104760 1.80233 46 90.053393 F R atio 4.9650 P rob > F 0.0309 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 1.7338672 0.0470188 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.303857 5.71 0.021101 2.23 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0309 Low er 95% 1.12187 0.0045187 U pper 95% 2.3458643 0.089519 001409 Random Sample Chemical Operators PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 12 RSCHEM = Linear ft T erm Intercept YRSCH EM L in e a r F it P F O S A A d f p p m = 0.0494 - 0.00118 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.03628 RSquare Adj 0.014864 Root M e a n Square Error 0.057519 M e a n of Response 0.036447 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 47 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.00560458 0.005605 45 0.14887811 0.003308 46 0.15448269 F R atio 1.6940 P rob > F 0.1997 E stim ate 0 .0 4 9 4 0 2 8 -0 .0 0 1 1 7 7 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0 .0 1 3 0 1 9 3 .7 9 0 .0 0 0 9 0 4 -1 .3 0 P ro b > |t| 0 .0 0 0 4 0 .1 9 9 7 Low er 95% 0 .0 2 3 1 8 2 2 -0 .0 0 2 9 9 8 U pper 95% 0 .0 7 5 6 2 3 3 0 .0 0 0 6 4 4 2 001410 Random Sample Chemical Operators M570 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 13 menai = Linea fl L in e a r Fit M 5 7 0 p p m = 0.30244 - 0.00666 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.071071 RSquare Adj 0.050428 Root M e a n Square Error 0.228431 M e a n of Response 0.229083 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 47 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.1796529 0.179653 45 2.3481307 0.052181 46 2.5277836 F Ratio 3.4429 Prob>F 0.0701 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.3024368 -0.006662 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.051702 5.85 0.00359 -1.86 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.0701 Lower 9 5 % 0.1983041 -0.013894 Upper 9 5 % 0.4065696 0.0005694 001411 Random Sample Chemical Operators PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 14 ffiSCHEM = Lira Fl L in e a r F it P F O S A d f p p m = 0.12291 - 0.00214 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.023165 RSquare Adj 0.001457 Root M e a n Square Error 0.131513 M e a n of Response 0.099399 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 47 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.01845661 0.018457 45 0.77830020 0.017296 46 0.79675681 F R atio 1.0671 P rob > F 0.3071 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.1229105 -0.002135 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.029766 4.13 0.002067 -1.03 P ro b > |t| 0.0002 0.3071 Low er 95% 0.0629591 -0.006299 U pper 95% 0.182862 0.002028 001412 Random Sample Chemical Operators M556 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 15 'IRSCHEM Source Model Error C T otal T erm Intercept YRSCHEM L in ea r F it M 5 5 6 d f p p m = 0.09775 - 0.00212 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.069465 RSquare Adj 0.048786 Root M e a n Square Error 0.073484 M e a n of Response 0.074438 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 47 A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.01813944 0.018139 45 0.24299278 0.005400 46 0.26113221 F R atio 3.3593 P rob > F 0.0734 E stim ate 0.097747 -0.002117 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.016632 5.88 0.001155 -1.83 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0734 Low er 95% 0.0642487 -0.004443 U pper 95% 0.1312453 0.0002094 001413 Random Sample Engineer/Lab PFOS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 16 HRSCHEM = Iren fl T erm Intercept YRSCHEM L in e a r Fit P F O S d f p p m = 0.40446 + 0.01564 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.124933 RSquare Adj 0.083263 Root M e a n Square Error 0.574244 M e a n of Response 0.633961 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 23 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.9886669 0.988667 21 6.9248903 0.329757 22 7.9135572 F R atio 2.9982 P rob > F 0.0980 E stim ate 0 .4 0 4 4 6 0 6 0 .0 1 5 6 4 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0 .1 7 8 6 1 9 2 .2 6 0 .0 0 9 0 3 3 1 .7 3 P ro b > |t| 0 .0 3 4 3 0 .0 9 8 0 Low er 95% 0 .0 3 3 0 0 4 9 -0 .0 0 3 1 4 4 U pper 95% 0 .7 7 5 9 1 6 3 0 .0 3 4 4 2 4 001414 Random Sample Engineer/Lab PFHS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 17 KRSCHEM = Urea Fl Term Intercept YRSCHEM Source Model Error C T otal L in e a r F it P FH Sd f p p m = 0.10657 + 0.00439 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.065012 RSquare Adj 0.020489 Root M e a n Square Error 0.23077 M e a n of Response 0.170933 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 23 A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF S u m o f S q u a r e s M ea n S q u a re 1 0.0777620 0.077762 21 1.1183544 0.053255 22 1.1961164 F R atio 1.4602 P rob > F 0.2403 Estimate 0.1065696 0.0043863 P aram eter E stim ates Std Error t Ratio 0.071781 1.48 0.00363 1.21 Prob>|t| 0.1525 0.2403 Lower 9 5 % -0.042706 -0.003162 Upper 9 5 % 0.2558458 0.011935 001415 Random Sample Engineer/Lab POAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 18 = linear Fi L in ea r F it P O A A p p m = 0.34907 + 0.00185 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.002389 RSquare Adj -0.04512 Root M e a n Square Error 0.525717 M e a n of Response 0.376278 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 23 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.0138962 0.013896 21 5.8039396 0.276378 22 5.8178358 F R atio 0.0503 P rob > F 0.8247 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.3490696 0.0018542 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.163524 2.13 0.008269 0.22 P ro b > |t| 0.0447 0.8247 Low er 95% 0.0090046 -0.015342 U pper 95% 0.6891347 0.0190509 001416 Random Sample Engineer/Lab PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 19 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 ttSCHEM = LireoFI L in e a r F it P F O S A A d f p p m = 0.01789 - 0.00027 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.034722 RSquareAdj -0.01124 Root M e a n Square Error 0.019647 M e a n of Response 0.013949 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 23 Source M odel Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.00029158 0.000292 21 0.00810598 0.000386 22 0.00839755 F R atio 0.7554 P rob > F 0.3946 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.0178899 -0.000269 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.006111 2.93 0.000309 -0.87 P ro b > |t| 0.0080 0.3946 Low er 95% 0.0051812 -0.000911 U pper 95% 0.0305987 0.0003741 001417 Random Sample Engineer/Lab M570 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 20 HEM -- Linea ft L in e a r F it M 5 7 0 p p m = 0.0747 - 0.00004 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.000047 RSquare Adj -0.04757 Root M e a n Square Error 0.087863 M e a n of Response 0.074065 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 23 Source M odel E rror C T otal A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0 .0 0 0 0 0 7 5 4 0 .0 0 0 0 0 8 21 0 .1 6 2 1 1 6 6 5 0 .0 0 7 7 2 0 2 2 0 .1 6 2 1 2 4 1 9 F R atio 0 .0 0 1 0 P rob > F 0 .9 7 5 4 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0 .0 7 4 6 9 9 1 -0 .0 0 0 0 4 3 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0 .0 2 7 3 3 2 .7 3 0 .0 0 1 3 8 2 -0 .0 3 P ro b > |t| 0 .0 1 2 5 0 .9 7 5 4 Low er 95% 0 .0 1 7 8 6 4 3 -0 .0 0 2 9 1 7 U pper 95% 0 .1 3 1 5 3 4 0 .0 0 2 8 3 0 9 00418 Random Sample Engineer/Lab PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 21 HISCHEM = Lreu ft Linear Fit P F O S A d f p p m = 0.01475 + 0.00015 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.007656 RSquare Adj -0.0396 Root M e a n Square Error 0.023047 M e a n of Response 0.01689 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 23 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.00008605 0.000086 21 0.01115404 0.000531 22 0.01124009 F Ratio 0.1620 Prob>F 0.6914 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.0147485 0.0001459 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.007169 2.06 0.000363 0.40 Prob>|t| 0.0523 0.6914 Lower 9 5 % -0.000159 -0.000608 Upper 9 5 % 0.0296564 0.0008998 001419 Random Sample Engineer/Lab M556 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 22 fflSCHEM = L ira Fi L in e a r Fit M 55 6d f p p m = 0.0188 - 0.00001 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.000046 RSquare Adj -0.04757 Root M e a n Square Error 0.027423 M e a n of Response 0.0186 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 23 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.00000073 0.000001 21 0.01579191 0.000752 22 0.01579264 F R atio 0.0010 P rob > F 0.9754 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.0187973 -0.000013 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.00853 2.20 0.000431 -0.03 P ro b > |t| 0.0388 0.9754 Low er 95% 0.0010588 -0.00091 U pper 95% 0.0365359 0.0008836 001420 Random Sample Maintenance PFOS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 23 R5CHEM = lira ft L in e a r Fit P FO Sd f p pm = 1.36713 + 0.03289 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.073544 RSquare Adj -0.0294 Root M e a n Square Error 1.245224 M e a n of Response 1.672091 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 11 Source M odel Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 1.107805 1.10780 9 13.955256 1.55058 10 15.063061 F R atio 0.7144 P rob > F 0.4199 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 1.3671255 0.0328884 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.52071 2.63 0.03891 0.85 P ro b > |t| 0.0276 0.4199 L ow er 95% 0.1891877 -0.055132 U pper 95% 2.5450633 0.1209093 001421 Random Sample Maintenance PFHS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 24 1RSCHEM = Line Fi L in ea r Fit P F H S d f p p m = 0.1267 + 0.01194 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.261552 RSquare Adj 0.179502 Root M e a n Square Error 0.214098 M e a n of Response 0.237455 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 11 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.14611866 0.146119 9 0.41254111 0.045838 10 0.55865977 F R atio 3.1877 P rob > F 0.1078 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.1266974 0.0119444 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.089528 1.42 0.00669 1.79 P ro b > |t| 0.1907 0.1078 Low er 95% -0.075832 -0.003189 U pper 95% 0.3292263 0.0270783 001422 Random Sample Maintenance POAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 25 "fflSCHEM = Un ft L in ea r F it P O A A p p m = 1.24651 + 0.02555 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.039706 RSquare Adj -0.06699 Root M e a n Square Error 1.340539 M e a n of Response l.483455 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 11 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.668731 0.66873 9 16.173404 1.79704 10 16.842135 F R atio 0.3721 P rob > F 0.5569 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 1.2465111 0.0255527 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.560567 2.22 0.041888 0.61 P ro b > |t| 0.0532 0.5569 Low er 95% -0.021591 -0.069206 U pper 95% 2.514613 0.1203111 001423 Random Sample Maintenance PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 26 IRSCHAt = liwrft L in e a r Fit P F O S A A d f p p m = 0.0347 - 0.00006 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.000472 RSquareAdj -0.11059 Root M e a n Square Error 0.031301 M e a n of Response 0.034106 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 11 Source Model Error C T otal A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.00000416 0.000004 9 0.00881782 0.000980 10 0.00882198 F R atio 0.0042 P rob > F 0.9495 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.0346975 -0.000064 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.013089 2.65 0.000978 -0.07 P ro b > |t| 0.0264 0.9495 Low er 95% 0.0050878 -0.002276 U pper 95% 0.0643072 0.0021488 001424 Random Sample Maintenance M570 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 27 'IRSCHEM -- Linear FI L in e a r Fit M 5 7 0 p p m = 0.26076 + 0.00079 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.001749 RSquareAdj -0.10917 Root M e a n Square Error 0.201468 M e a n of Response 0.268091 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 11 Source M odel Error C T otal A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.00064018 0.000640 9 0.36530321 0.040589 10 0.36594339 F R atio 0.0158 P rob > F 0.9028 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.2607598 0.0007906 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.084247 3.10 0.006295 0.13 P ro b > |t| 0.0128 0.9028 Low er 95% 0.0701785 -0.01345 U pper 95% 0.4513411 0.0150317 001425 Random Sample Maintenance PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM Aopendix E Page 28 0 S 10 IS 20 25 3D YRSCHEM = Lmrfl L in e a r F it P F O S A d f p p m = 0.09744 - 0.00351 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.043743 RSquare Adj -0.06251 Root M e a n Square Error 0.174833 M e a n of Response 0.064939 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 11 Source M odel E rror C T otal A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0 .0 1 2 5 8 4 2 0 0 .0 1 2 5 8 4 9 0 .2 7 5 0 9 9 1 1 0 .0 3 0 5 6 7 10 0 .2 8 7 6 8 3 3 1 F R atio 0 .4 1 1 7 P rob > F 0 .5 3 7 1 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.0974427 -0.003505 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.073109 1.33 0.005463 -0.64 P ro b > |t| 0.2153 0.5371 Low er 95% -0.067943 -0.015864 U pper 95% 0.2628285 0.0088531 001426 Random Sample Maintenance M556 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 29 RSCHEM = Ureaft T erm Intercept YRSCHEM Source Model Error C T otal L in e a r Fit M 55 6d f p pm = 0.11026 + 0.00048 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.001793 RSquareAdj -0.10912 Root M e a n Square Error 0.120441 M e a n of Response 0.1147 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 11 A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.00023453 0.000235 9 0.13055477 0.014506 10 0.13078930 F R atio 0.0162 P rob > F 0.9016 E stim ate 0.1102627 0.0004785 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.050364 2.19 0.003763 0.13 P ro b > |t| 0.0563 0.9016 Low er 95% -0.00367 -0.008035 U pper 95% 0.2241958 0.0089921 001427 Random Sample Supervisor/Mgmt PFOS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 *0 IRSCH = Linear f i Linear Fit PFOSdfjppm = -0.2688 + 0.10578 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.197186 RSquareAdj 0.14701 Root M e a n Square Error 2.366822 M e a n of Response 1.879072 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 18 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 22.01465 22.0146 16 89.62951 5.6018 17 111.64416 F Ratio 3.9299 Prob>F 0.0649 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -0.268787 0.1057769 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 1.218652 -0.22 0.053358 1.98 Prob>|t| 0.8282 0.0649 Lower 9 5 % -2.8522 -0.007337 Upper 9 5 % 2.3146273 0.2188905 001428 Random Sample Supervisor/Mgmt PFHS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 31 'IRSCHEM = Linear Tl T erm Intercept YRSCH EM L in e a r Fit P F H S d f p p m = 0.04613 + 0.01835 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.194032 RSquare Adj 0.143659 Root M e a n Square Error 0.414774 M e a n of Response 0.418777 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 18 Source M odel E rror C T otal A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0 .6 6 2 6 7 2 3 0 .6 6 2 6 7 2 16 2 .7 5 2 5 9 6 3 0 .1 7 2 0 3 7 17 3 .4 1 5 2 6 8 6 F R atio 3 .8 5 1 9 P rob > F 0 .0 6 7 3 E stim ate 0 .0 4 6 1 2 8 8 0 .0 1 8 3 5 2 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0 .2 1 3 5 6 3 0 .2 2 0 .0 0 9 3 5 1 1 .9 6 P ro b > |t| 0 .8 3 1 7 0 .0 6 7 3 Low er 95% -0 .4 0 6 6 0 2 -0 .0 0 1 4 7 1 U pper 95% 0 .4 9 8 8 5 9 3 0 .0 3 8 1 7 4 6 001429 Random Sample Supervisor/Mgmt POAAppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 32 YRSCHEM = UnwFl T erm Intercept YRSCH EM Source M odel E rror C T otal L in ea r F it P O A A p p m = 0 .3 0 8 4 1 + 0 .0 5 2 3 3 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.171838 RSquare Adj 0.120078 Root M e a n Square Error 1.27387 M e a n of Response 1.370928 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 18 A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 5 .3 8 7 3 3 6 5 .3 8 7 3 4 16 2 5 .9 6 3 9 3 1 1 .6 2 2 7 5 17 3 1 .3 5 1 2 6 7 F R atio 3 .3 1 9 9 P rob > F 0 .0 8 7 2 E stim ate 0 .3 0 8 4 0 8 4 0 .0 5 2 3 2 6 5 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0 .6 5 5 9 0 3 0 .4 7 0 .0 2 8 7 1 8 1 .8 2 P ro b > |t| 0 .6 4 4 6 0 .0 8 7 2 Low er 95% -1 .0 8 2 0 3 6 -0 .0 0 8 5 5 3 U pper 95% 1 .6 9 8 8 5 3 0 .1 1 3 2 0 6 5 001430 Random Sample Supervisor/Mgmt PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 33 RSCHEM = Lreor FI L in e a r F it P F O S A A d p p m = 0.00595 + 0.00023 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.036993 RSquare Adj -0.0232 Root M e a n Square Error 0.012927 M e a n of Response 0.010586 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 18 T erm Intercept YRSCH EM Source M odel E rror C T otal DF 1 16 17 E stim ate 0 .0 0 5 9 4 6 3 0 .0 0 0 2 2 8 5 A n a ly sis o f V arian ce Sum of Squares 0 .0 0 0 1 0 2 7 1 0 .0 0 2 6 7 3 7 2 0 .0 0 2 7 7 6 4 3 P aram eter E stim a tes S td Error t R atio 0 .0 0 6 6 5 6 0 .8 9 0 .0 0 0 2 9 1 0 .7 8 M ean Square 0 .0 0 0 1 0 3 0 .0 0 0 1 6 7 F R atio 0 .6 1 4 6 P rob > F 0 .4 4 4 5 P ro b > |t| 0 .3 8 4 9 0 .4 4 4 5 Low er 95% -0 .0 0 8 1 6 4 -0 .0 0 0 3 8 9 U pper 95% 0 .0 2 0 0 5 6 2 0 .0 0 0 8 4 6 3 001431 Random Sample Supervisor/Mgmt M570ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 34 -- netr fl T erm Intercept YRSCH EM L in ea r Fit M 5 7 0 p p m = 0 .0 5 2 2 9 + 0 .0 0 3 4 1 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.059466 RSquare Adj 0.000683 Root M e a n Square Error 0.150515 M e a n of Response 0.121594 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 18 Source M odel E rror C T otal A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0 .0 2 2 9 1 7 7 7 0 .0 2 2 9 1 8 16 0 .3 6 2 4 7 5 0 8 0 .0 2 2 6 5 5 17 0 .3 8 5 3 9 2 8 5 F R atio 1 .0 1 1 6 P rob > F 0 .3 2 9 5 E stim ate 0 .0 5 2 2 9 4 0 .0 0 3 4 1 2 9 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0 .0 7 7 4 9 8 0 .6 7 0 .0 0 3 3 9 3 1 .0 1 P ro b > |t| 0 .5 0 9 5 0 .3 2 9 5 Low er 95% -0 .1 1 1 9 9 5 -0 .0 0 3 7 8 U pper 95% 0 .2 1 6 5 8 2 6 0 .0 1 0 6 0 6 2 001432 Random Sample Supervisor/Mgmt PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 35 RSCHEM = Linenr Ft T erm In tercep t YRSCH EM L in e a r F it P F O S A d fp p m = -0 .0 3 3 4 + 0 .0 0 4 8 3 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit R Square 0 .1 1 4 2 1 4 R Square A dj 0 .0 5 8 8 5 2 R oot M ean Square Error 0 .1 4 9 0 6 M ean o f R esponse 0 .0 6 4 6 2 2 O b serv a tio n s (o r S u m W g ts) 18 Source M odel E rror C T otal A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0 .0 4 5 8 3 8 8 2 0 .0 4 5 8 3 9 16 0 .3 5 5 5 0 3 0 3 0 .0 2 2 2 1 9 17 0 .4 0 1 3 4 1 8 5 F R atio 2 .0 6 3 1 P rob > F 0 .1 7 0 2 E stim ate -0 .0 3 3 3 8 7 0 .0 0 4 8 2 6 7 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0 .0 7 6 7 5 -0 .4 4 0 .0 0 3 3 6 1 .4 4 P ro b > |t| 0 .6 6 9 4 0 .1 7 0 2 Low er 95% -0 .1 9 6 0 8 8 -0 .0 0 2 2 9 7 U pper 95% 0 .1 2 9 3 1 4 0 .0 1 1 9 5 0 5 001433 Random Sample Supervisor/Mgmt M556 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 36 YRSCHEM = lir a Ft T erm In te r ce p t YRSCH EM Source M odel E rror C T otal L in ea r F it M 5 5 6 d fp p m = -0 .0 0 7 + 0 .0 0 2 6 1 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it R Square 0 .1 0 5 3 8 2 R Square Adj 0 .0 4 9 4 6 9 R oot M ean Square Error 0 .0 8 4 3 6 2 M ean o f R esponse 0 .0 4 6 O b serv a tio n s (or S u m W g ts) 18 A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0 .0 1 3 4 1 3 6 9 0 .0 1 3 4 1 4 16 0 .1 1 3 8 7 2 0 7 0 .0 0 7 1 1 7 17 0 .1 2 7 2 8 5 7 6 F R atio 1 .8 8 4 7 P rob > F 0 .1 8 8 7 E stim ate -0 .0 0 7 0 1 8 0 .0 0 2 6 1 1 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0 .0 4 3 4 3 7 -0 .1 6 0 .0 0 1 9 0 2 1 .3 7 P ro b > |t| 0 .8 7 3 7 0 .1 8 8 7 Low er 95% -0 .0 9 9 1 0 1 -0 .0 0 1 4 2 1 U pper 95% 0 .0 8 5 0 6 4 4 0 .0 0 6 6 4 2 8 001434 3 00 " Random Sample Mill Operators PFOS ppm By YRSCHEM 2.00 * a Ea Q. o E 1.00 " ! .1 aa 0.00 " i i i i ii Br ' | "i i | "T"T i | i i i | i i 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 YRSCHEM Appendix B Page 37 001435 Random Sample Mill Operators PFHS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 38 WHEW 001436 100 - Random Sample Mill Operators POAA ppm By YRSCHEM e O- | 1.00 - 1 ; 0,00 0 5 10 15 YRSCHEM 20 25 Appendix E Page 39 001437 Random Sample Mill Operators PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 40 001438 Random Sample Mill Operators M570 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 41 001439 Random Sample Mill Operators PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM 0.20 - ' 0.00 I ' 1 1 ' I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 ' I 1 r "' ' I ' ' ' ' 0 5 10 15 20 25 YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 42 001440 Random Sample Mill Operators M556 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix E Page 43 HEM 001441 Appendix F Page 1 Appendix F Scatterplots and regression equations for fluorochemicals (natural log transformation) by years worked in chemical (YRSCHEM) for all random sample (n = 126) and for two current job cateogries (chemical operators and engineer/lab) 001442 Random Sample Appendix F Page 2 = Linea Fi Linear Fit ln P FO Sd f p p m = -0.4008 + 0.02654 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.082224 RSquare Adj 0.074823 Root M e a n Square Error 0.987128 M e a n of Response -0.06052 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 126 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 10.82508 10.8251 124 120.82819 0.9744 125 131.65326 F Ratio 11.1092 Prob>F 0.0011 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -0.400807 0.0265406 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.134748 -2.97 0.007963 3.33 Prob>|t| 0.0035 0.0011 Lower 9 5 % -0.667512 0.0107798 Upper 9 5 % -0.134101 0.0423014 001443 Random Sampie In PFHS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix F Page 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 JO J5 10 R5CHEW = IrenPi T erm Intercept YRSCH EM Source M odel E rror C T otal L in e a r Fit In P FH Sd f p p m = -2.4032 + 0.05366 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.236894 RSquare Adj 0.230739 Root M e a n Square Error 1.072243 M e a n of Response -1.7152 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 126 A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 44.25642 44.2564 124 142.56346 1.1497 125 186.81988 F R atio 38.4937 P rob > F <.0001 E stim ate -2.403248 0.053664 P aram eter E stim ates Std Error t R atio 0.146366 -16.42 0.008649 6.20 P ro b > |t| <.0001 <.0001 Low er 95% -2.69295 0.0365442 U pper 95% -2.113546 0.0707838 001444 Appendix F Page 4 = Uro fi Linear Fit ln P O A A p p m = -0.2007 + 0.00738 Y R S C H E M Summary of Fit RSquare 0.004252 RSquare Adj -0.00378 Root M e a n Square Error 1.256877 M e a n of Response -0.10609 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 126 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.83656 0.83656 124 195.88769 1.57974 125 196.72425 F Ratio 0.5296 Prob>F 0.4682 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -0.200686 0.0073781 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.17157 -1.17 0.010139 0.73 Prob>|t| 0.2444 0.4682 Lower 9 5 % -0.540273 -0.01269 Upper 9 5 % 0.1389006 0.0274458 001445 Random Sample In PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix F Page 5 YRSCHEM = Linea Fl T erm Intercept YRSCH EM Source Model Error C Total L in e a r F it ln P F O S A A d f p p m = -4.478 - 0.02366 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.032321 RSquare Adj 0.024517 Root M e a n Square Error 1.441192 M e a n of Response -4.7813 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 126 A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 8.60226 8.60226 124 257.55240 2.07704 125 266.15466 F R atio 4.1416 P rob > F 0.0440 E stim ate -4.477958 -0.023659 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.19673 -22.76 0.011626 -2.04 P ro b > |t| <-0001 0.0440 L ow er 95% -4.867344 -0.04667 U pper 95% -4.088572 -0.000649 001446 Random Sample In M 570 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix F Page 6 YRSCNEU = Liraft Linear Fit ln 570ppm = -2.353 - 0.0126 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y of Fit RSquare 0.015641 RSquare Adj 0.007702 Root M e a n Square Error 1.112421 M e a n of Response -2.51453 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 126 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 2.43817 2.43817 124 153.44766 1.23748 125 155.88583 F Ratio 1.9703 Prob>F 0.1629 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Parameter Estimates Estimate Std Error -2.353036 0.151851 -0.012596 0.008974 t Ratio -15.50 -1.40 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.1629 001447 Random Sample In PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix F Page 7 YRSCHEM = Iren Fl Source Model Error C Total Term Intercept YRSCHEM Linear Fit ln P F O S A d f p p m = -4.1363 - 0.01701 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.009846 RSquare Adj 0.001861 Root M e a n Square Error 1.899215 M e a n of Response -4.35445 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 126 Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 4.44768 4.44768 124 447.26998 3.60702 125 451.71766 F Ratio 1.2331 Prob>F 0.2690 Parameter Estimates Estimate Std Error t Ratio -4.13633 0.259252 -15.95 -0.017012 0.01532 -1.11 Lower 9 5 % -4.649466 -0.047336 Upper 9 5 % -3.623194 0.0133113 001448 Random Sample In M556 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix F Page 8 YRSCHEM = Linea Ft L in ea r F it ln M 5 5 6 d f p p m = -3.6365 - 0.01244 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.010236 RSquare Adj 0.002254 Root M e a n Square Error 1.362297 M e a n of Response -3.79603 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 126 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 2.38002 2.38002 124 230.12586 1.85585 125 232.50588 F R atio 1.2824 P rob > F 0.2596 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate -3.636469 -0.012445 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.18596 -19.56 0.010989 -1.13 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.2596 Low er 95% -4.004539 -0.034196 U pper 95% -3.268399 0.0093062 001449 Random Sample Chemical Operators In PFOS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix F Page 9 fflSCHEM = Iren Ft Linear Fit ln P FO Sd fp p m = 0.25621 + 0.0124 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y of Fit RSquare 0.038311 RSquare Adj 0.01694 Root M e a n Square Error 0.589163 M e a n of Response 0.392725 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 47 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.622261 0.622261 45 15.620109 0.347114 46 16.242370 F Ratio 1.7927 Prob>F 0.1873 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.2562063 0.0123988 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.133348 1.92 0.00926 1.34 Prob>|t| 0.0610 0.1873 Lower 9 5 % -0.01237 -0.006253 Upper 9 5 % 0.524783 0.0310501 001450 Random Sample Chemical Operators In PFHS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix F Page 10 RSCHEM = Linear Fi Linear Fit ln P F H S d f p p m = -1.7176 + 0.0491 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y of Fit RSquare 0.345578 RSquare Adj 0.331035 Root M e a n Square Error 0.640812 M e a n of Response -1.17704 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 47 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 9.758008 9.75801 45 18.478805 0.41064 46 28.236813 F Ratio 23.7629 Prob>F <.0001 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -1.717649 0.0490992 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.145038 -11.84 0.010072 4.87 Prob>|t| <.0001 <.0001 Lower 9 5 % -2.00977 0.0288128 Upper 9 5 % -1.425527 0.0693855 001451 Random Sample Chemical Operators In POAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix F Page 11 YRSCHEM ^ Lineo fi L in e a r Fit ln P O A A p p m = 0.51048 + 0.01132 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.027722 RSquare Adj 0.006116 Root M e a n Square Error 0.635686 M e a n of Response 0.635094 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 47 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.518477 0.518477 45 18.184368 0.404097 46 18.702845 F R atio 1.2831 P rob > F 0.2633 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.5104788 0.0113177 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.143878 3.55 0.009992 1.13 P ro b > |t| 0.0009 0.2633 Low er 95% 0.2206941 -0.008806 U pper 95% 0.8002634 0.0314418 001452 Random Sample Chemical Operators In PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix F Page 12 YRSCHEM = Linear Fi L in ea r F it ln P F O S A A d f p p m = -4.2679 - 0.01959 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.013261 RSquare Adj -0.00867 Root M e a n Square Error 1.603004 M e a n of Response -4.4836 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 47 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 1.55397 1.55397 45 115.63304 2.56962 46 117.18701 F Ratio 0.6047 Prob>F 0.4408 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -4.267867 -0.019594 Parameter Estimates Std Error tRatio 0.362816 -11.76 0.025196 -0.78 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.4408 Lower 9 5 % -4.998614 -0.07034 Upper 9 5 % -3.537119 0.0311532 001453 Random Sample Chemical Operators In M570 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix F Page 13 RSCHEM = Urea FI Linear Fit In 570ppm = -1.6206 - 0.03729 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y of Fit RSquare 0.09218 RSquare Adj 0.072006 Root M e a n Square Error 1.109871 M e a n of Response -2.03122 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 47 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 5.628506 5.62851 45 55.431655 1.23181 46 61.060161 F Ratio 4.5693 Prob>F 0.0380 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -1.620635 -0.03729 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.251203 -6.45 0.017445 -2.14 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.0380 Lower 9 5 % -2.126582 -0.072425 Upper 9 5 % -1.114688 -0.002154 001454 Random Sample Chemical Operators In PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix F Page 14 YRSCHEM = Linea Fi Linear Fit ln P F O S A d f p p m = -3.2174 - 0.03217 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.026974 RSquare Adj 0.005351 Root M e a n Square Error 1.832598 M e a n of Response -3.57167 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 47 Source Model Error CTotal Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 4.18951 4.18951 45 151.12876 3.35842 46 155.31826 F Ratio 1.2475 Prob>F 0.2700 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -3.217438 -0.032172 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.414782 -7.76 0.028805 -1.12 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.2700 Lower 9 5 % -4.052848 -0.090187 Upper 9 5 % -2.382028 0.0258433 001455 Random Sample Chemical Operators In M556 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix F Page 15 YRSCHEU = Linea fl Linear Fit In M 5 5 6 d f p p m = -2.7767 - 0.03141 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y of Fit RSquare 0.065942 RSquareAdj 0.045185 Root M e a n Square Error 1.121235 M e a n of Response -3.12253 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 47 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 3.993849 3.99385 45 56.572602 1.25717 46 60.566451 F Ratio 3.1769 Prob>F 0.0814 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -2.776667 -0.031412 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.253775 -10.94 0.017623 -1.78 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.0814 Lower 9 5 % -3.287794 -0.066907 Upper 9 5 % -2.265539 0.0040837 001456 Random Sample Engineer/Lab In PFOS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix F Page 16 RSCHDI = neor Fl Linear Fit ln P FO Sd f p p m = -1.4007 + 0.03146 Y R S C H E M S u mm a r y of Fit RSquare 0.170302 RSquare Adj 0.130793 Root M e a n Square Error 0.963504 M e a n of Response -0.93898 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 23 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 4.001539 4.00154 21 19.495151 0.92834 22 23.496691 F Ratio 4.3104 Prob>F 0.0503 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -1.40069 0.0314649 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.299699 -4.67 0.015155 2.08 Prob>|t| 0.0001 0.0503 Lower 9 5 % -2.023942 -0.000052 Upper 9 5 % -0.777437 0.0629819 001457 Random Sample Engineer/Lab In PFHS ppm By VRSCHEM Appendix F Page 17 YRSCHEM = Iren ft L in ea r F it ln P FH Sd fp p m = -3.1745 + 0.04275 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.192846 RSquareAdj 0.15441 Root M e a n Square Error 1.213305 M e a n of Response -2.54721 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 23 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 7.386077 7.38608 21 30.914308 1.47211 2 2 38.300386 F R atio 5.0173 P rob > F 0.0360 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate -3.174495 0.0427483 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.377399 -8.41 0.019085 2.24 P ro b > |t| < .0 0 0 1 0.0360 Low er 95% -3.959334 0.0030601 U pper 95% -2.389657 0.0824366 00145S Random Sample Engineer/Lab In POAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix F Page 18 RSCHEM = Lm rft Source M odel E rror C T otal T erm Intercept YRSCH EM L in e a r F it ln P O A A p p m = -1.8235 + 0.01742 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.047702 RSquare Adj 0.002355 Root M e a n Square Error 1.079651 M e a n of Response -1.56794 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 23 A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 1 .2 2 6 1 7 1 1 .2 2 6 1 7 21 2 4 .4 7 8 5 6 7 1 .1 6 5 6 5 2 2 2 5 .7 0 4 7 3 8 F R atio 1 .0 5 1 9 P rob > F 0 .3 1 6 7 E stim ate -1 .8 2 3 5 2 6 0 .0 1 7 4 1 7 6 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0 .3 3 5 8 2 6 -5 .4 3 0 .0 1 6 9 8 2 1 .0 3 P ro b > |t| < .0 0 0 1 0 .3 1 6 7 Low er 95% -2 .5 2 1 9 0 9 -0 .0 1 7 8 9 9 U pper 95% -1 .1 2 5 1 4 3 0 .0 5 2 7 3 3 9 001459 Random Sample Engineer/Lab In PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix F Page 19 YRSCHEM = Lreor Fi Linear Fit ln P F O S A A d f p p m = -5.15 - 0.00367 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.001234 RSquare Adj -0.04633 Root M e a n Square Error 1.44825 M e a n of Response -5.2038 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 23 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.054411 0.05441 21 44.045995 2.09743 22 44.100406 F Ratio 0.0259 Prob>F 0.8736 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -5.149964 -0.003669 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.450479 -11.43 0.02278 -0.16 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.8736 Lower 9 5 % -6.086779 -0.051043 Upper 9 5 % -4.213149 0.0437044 001460 Random Sample Engineer/Lab Ln M570ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix F Page 20 YRSCHEM -- Lineafi L in e a r Fit ln 570ppm = -3.0598 + 0.00297 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.002026 RSquare Adj -0.0455 Root M e a n Square Error 0.915637 M e a n of Response -3.01612 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 23 Source Model E rror C T otal A n alysis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.035747 0.035747 21 17.606219 0.838391 22 17.641966 F R atio 0.0426 P rob > F 0.8384 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate -3.059762 0.0029739 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.284809 -10.74 0.014402 0.21 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.8384 Low er 95% -3.652051 -0.026977 U pper 95% -2.467473 0.0329252 001461 Random Sample Engineer/Lab In PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix F Page 21 YRSCHEU = = Linear Fl Linear Fit ln P F O S A d f p p m = -5.5202 + 0.00865 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.004124 RSquare Adj -0.0433 Root M e a n Square Error 1.864648 M e a n of Response -5.39325 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 23 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.302390 0.30239 21 73.015154 3.47691 22 73.317544 F Ratio 0.0870 Prob>F 0.7710 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -5.520173 0.0086496 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.58 -9.52 0.02933 0.29 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.7710 Lower 9 5 % -6.726339 -0.052345 Upper 9 5 % -4.314007 0.0696438 001462 Random Sample Engineer/Lab In M556 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix F Page 22 YRSCHEM = Iren Ft T erm Intercept YRSCH EM L in e a r F it In M 55 6d fp p m = -4.7931 + 0.00973 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.013025 RSquare Adj -0.03397 Root M e a n Square Error 1.174741 M e a n of Response -4.65037 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 23 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.382462 0.38246 21 28.980362 1.38002 22 29.362824 F R atio 0.2771 P rob > F 0.6041 E stim ate -4.793115 0.0097276 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t Ratio 0.365404 -13.12 0.018478 0.53 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.6041 Low er 95% -5.553008 -0.028699 U pper 95% -4.033222 0.0481544 001463 Appendix G Page 1 Appendix G Scatterplots and regression equations for fluorochemicals by years worked in chemical(YRSCHEM) for all chemical participants (n = 187) for current job categories (cell operators, chemical operators, engineer/lab, maintenance, mill operators and supervisor/mgmt) 001464 All Participants PFOS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 2 'fflSCHEM = Uwfl L in e a r F it P F O S d f p p m = 0.87788 + 0.04433 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.109673 RSquare Adj 0.10486 Root M e a n Square Error 1.424349 M e a n of Response 1.424443 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 187 Source Model Error C T otal A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 46.23325 46.2333 185 375.32259 2.0288 186 421.55584 F R atio 22.7888 P rob > F <.0001 T erm Intercept YRSCH EM E stim ate 0.8778797 0.0443319 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.154783 5.67 0.009287 4.77 P ro b > |t| <-0001 <.0001 Low er 95% 0.5725098 0.0260105 U pper 95% 1.1832495 0.0626534 001465 Ail Participants PFHS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 3 YRSCHEM = Linea Fl L in e a r F it P F H S d f p p m = 0.12463 + 0.01594 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.210847 RSquareAdj 0.206581 Root M e a n Square Error 0.347846 M e a n of Response 0.321211 Observations (or S u m W gts) 187 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 5.980711 5.98071 185 22.384463 0.12100 186 28.365174 F R atio 49.4286 P rob > F <.0001 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.1246314 0.0159447 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.0378 3.30 0.002268 7.03 P ro b > |t| 0.0012 <.0001 Low er 95% 0.0500558 0.0114703 U pper 95% 0.1992071 0.020419 001466 All Participants POAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 4 YRSCHEM = Lira Ft Linear Fit P O A A p p m = 1.20809 + 0.01788 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.024711 RSquare Adj 0.019439 Root M e a n Square Error 1.266529 M e a n of Response 1.42851 Observations (or S u m W gts) 187 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 7.51900 7.51900 185 296.75766 1.60410 186 304.27666 F Ratio 4.6874 Prob>F 0.0317 Term In tercep t YRSCHEM Estimate 1.2080941 0.017878 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.137633 8.78 0.008258 2.17 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.0317 Lower 9 5 % 0.9365598 0.0015867 Upper 9 5 % 1.4796284 0.0341694 001467 All Participants PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 5 0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 i0 YRSCHEM = Lineor ft L in e a r F it P F O S A A d f p p m = 0.03463 - 0.00084 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.052504 RSquare Adj 0.047383 Root M e a n Square Error 0.04017 M e a n of Response 0.024293 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 187 Source Model Error C T otal A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.01654217 0.016542 185 0.29852064 0.001614 186 0.31506281 F R atio 10.2516 P rob > F 0.0016 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.0346317 -0.000839 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.004365 7.93 0.000262 -3.20 P ro b > |t| < .0 0 0 1 0.0016 Low er 95% 0.0260196 -0.001355 U pper 95% 0.0432438 -0.000322 001468 All Participants M570 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 6 0 5 10 15 20 25 JO 35 10 YRSCHEM = Uneorfi L in e a r Fit M 5 7 0 p p m = 0.1882 - 0.00247 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.009497 RSquare Adj 0.004143 Root M e a n Square Error 0.283957 M e a n of Response 0.157804 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 187 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.143025 0.143025 185 14.916841 0.080632 186 15.059866 F Ratio 1.7738 Prob>F 0.1845 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.188204 -0.002466 Parameter Estimates Std Error tRatio 0.030857 6.10 0.001851 -1.33 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.1845 Lower 9 5 % 0.1273257 -0.006118 Upper 9 5 % 0.2490822 0.0011868 001469 All Participants PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 7 = LrarFl Linear Fit P F O S A d f p p m = 0.05391 - 0.00022 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y of Fit RSquare 0.000516 RSquare Adj -0.00489 Root M e a n Square Error 0.107249 M e a n of Response 0.051246 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 187 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.0010985 0.001098 185 2.1279346 0.011502 186 2.1290331 F Ratio 0.0955 Prob>F 0.7576 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.0539099 -0.000216 Parameter Estimates Std Error tRatio 0.011655 4.63 0.000699 -0.31 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.7576 Lower 9 5 % 0.0309165 -0.001596 Upper 9 5 % 0.0769033 0.0011635 001470 All Participants M556 ppm By YRSCHEM 0.50 0*5 0.(5 035 0.30 E t - 0.25 0.20 2 0,15 - I 0,10 0.05 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 *0 muni Appendix G Page 8 = linea Fl Linear Fit M 5 5 6 df p p m = 0.05481 - 0.00053 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.007159 RSquare Adj 0.001763 Root M e a n Square Error 0.07024 M e a n of Response 0.048273 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 186 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.00654604 0.006546 184 0.90780250 0.004934 185 0.91434853 F Ratio 1.3268 Prob>F 0.2509 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.0548148 -0.000528 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.007667 7.15 0.000459 -1.15 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.2509 Lower 9 5 % 0.039688 -0.001434 Upper 9 5 % 0.0699416 0.0003767 001471 All Participants Cell Operators PFOS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 9 YRSCHEM = Urea FI Linear Fit P F O S d f p p m = 0.41242 + 0.09869 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.23418 RSquare Adj 0.124777 Root M e a n Square Error 1.814425 M e a n of Response 2.265556 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 9 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 7.046913 7.04691 7 23.044960 3.29214 8 30.091872 F Ratio 2.1405 Prob>F 0.1869 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.4124178 0.0986878 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 1.403612 0.29 0.067453 1.46 Prob>|t| 0.7774 0.1869 Lower 9 5 % -2.906623 -0.060815 Upper 9 5 % 3.7314586 0.2581907 001472 All Participants Cell Operators PFHS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 10 menai = Linear fi Linear Fit P FH Sd fp p m = -0.0673 + 0.05293 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y of Fit RSquare 0.573083 RSquare Adj 0.512095 Root M e a n Square Error 0.464481 M e a n of Response 0.926611 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 9 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 2.0272533 2.02725 7 1.5101985 0.21574 8 3.5374519 F Ratio 9.3966 Prob>F 0.0182 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -0.067334 0.052932 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.359316 -0.19 0.017268 3.07 Prob>|t| 0.8567 0.0182 Lower 9 5 % -0.916987 0.0121003 Upper 9 5 % 0.7823194 0.0937637 001473 All Participants Call Operators POAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 11 WCHEM = IjneorFI Linear Fit P O A A p p m = 0.25794 + 0.08268 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.423489 RSquareAdj 0.34113 Root M e a n Square Error 0.980819 M e a n of Response 1.810556 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 9 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance OF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 4.946633 4.94663 7 6.734042 0.96201 8 11.680674 F Ratio 5.1420 Prob>F 0.0577 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM Parameter Estimates Estimate Std Error 0.257943 0.758747 0.0826835 0.036463 t Ratio 0.34 2.27 Prob>|t| 0.7439 0.0577 001474 All Participants Cell Operators PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 12 WSCHEM = tinea Ft Linear Fit PFOSAAdfjppm = 0.03031 - 0.00112 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.418421 RSquare Adj 0.335339 Root M e a n Square Error 0.013461 M e a n of Response 0.009223 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 9 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.00091259 0.000913 7 0.00126844 0.000181 8 0.00218103 F Ratio 5.0362 Prob>F 0.0597 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Parameter Estimates Estimate Std Error 0.0303118 0.010413 -0.001123 0.0005 t Ratio 2.91 -2.24 Prob>|t| 0.0226 0.0597 001475 All Participants Cell Operators M570 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 13 RSCHEM = Linen Ft Linear Fit M 5 7 0 p p m = 0.10376 - 0.00314 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.380736 RSquare Adj 0.292269 Root M e a n Square Error 0.040686 M e a n of Response 0.044833 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 9 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.00712436 0.007124 7 0.01158772 0.001655 8 0.01871208 F Ratio 4.3037 Prob>F 0.0767 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.1037558 -0.003138 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.031474 3.30 0.001513 -2.07 Prob>|t| 0.0132 0.0767 Lower 9 5 % 0.02933 -0.006715 Upper 9 5 % 0.1781816 0.0004388 001476 All Participants Call Operators PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 14 YRSCHEM = linearFi Linear Fit P F O S A d f p p m = 0.01002 - 0.0002 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y of Fit RSquare 0.152809 RSquareAdj 0.031782 Root M e a n Square Error 0.004794 M e a n of Response 0.006259 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 9 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.00002902 0.000029 7 0.00016088 0.000023 8 0.00018990 F Ratio 1.2626 Prob>F 0.2982 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.0100194 -0.0002 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.003709 2.70 0.000178 -1.12 Prob>|t| 0.0306 0.2982 Lower 9 5 % 0.0012498 -0.000622 Upper 9 5 % 0.018789 0.0002212 001477 All Participants Call Operators M556 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 15 HSCHQI = Lira Ft Linear Fit M 5 5 6 d f p p m = 0.01826 - 0.00025 Y R S C H E M Su m m a ry of Fit RSquare 0.04781 RSquare Adj -0.08822 Root M e a n Square Error 0.011547 M e a n of Response 0.013478 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 9 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares M e a n Square 1 0.00004686 0.000047 7 0.00093337 0.000133 8 0.00098024 F Ratio 0.3515 Prob>F 0.5719 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM Parameter Estimates Estimate Std Error 0.0182567 0.008933 -0.000254 0.000429 t Ratio 2.04 -0.59 Prob>|t| 0.0803 0.5719 001478 Ail Participants Chemical Operators PFOS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 16 HEM = Lmr Fi Linear Fit P F O S d f p p m = 1.45105 + 0.03765 Y R S C H E M Summary of Fit RSquare 0.070586 RSquare Adj 0.055596 Root M e a n Square Error 1.25103 M e a n of Response 1.839062 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 64 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 7.36950 7.36950 62 97.03475 1.56508 63 104.40425 F Ratio 4.7087 Prob>F 0.0339 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 1.4510518 0.0376538 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.237545 6.11 0.017352 2.17 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.0339 Lower 9 5 % 0.9762066 0.002967 Upper 9 5 % 1.925897 0.0723406 001479 All Participants Chemical Operators PFHS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 17 ESCHEW = Lineo Ft L in e a r Fit P F H S df p p m = 0.17914 + 0.02247 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.284349 RSquare Adj 0.272806 Root M e a n Square Error 0.326413 M e a n of Response 0.410705 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 64 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 2.6246883 2.62469 62 6.6058219 0.10655 63 9.2305102 F R atio 24.6344 P rob > F <.0001 Term Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0 .1 7 9 1 4 4 7 0 .0 2 2 4 7 1 3 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0 .0 6 1 9 7 9 2 .8 9 0 .0 0 4 5 2 7 4 .9 6 P ro b > |t| 0 .0 0 5 3 < .0 0 0 1 Low er 95% 0 .0 5 5 2 5 0 2 0 .0 1 3 4 2 1 U pper 95% 0 .3 0 3 0 3 9 1 0 .0 3 1 5 2 1 7 001480 All Participants Chemical Operators POAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 18 YRSCNEU = Unni FI L in e a r Fit P O A A p p m = 1.71456 + 0.04674 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y of Fit RSquare 0.101987 RSquare Adj 0.087503 Root M e a n Square Error 1.269983 M e a n of Response 2.196234 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 64 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 11.35666 11.3567 62 99.99717 1.6129 63 111.35384 F R atio 7.0413 P rob > F 0.0101 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 1.7145638 0.0467429 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.241143 7.11 0.017615 2.65 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0101 Low er 95% 1.2325247 0.0115305 U pper 95% 2.1966029 0.0819552 001481 All Participants Chemical Operators PFOSAA ppm By VRSCHEM Appendix G Page 19 1RSCHEM = Linear Fi Linear Fit P F O S A A d f p p m = 0.05584 - 0.00136 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y of Fit RSquare 0.042288 RSquare Adj 0.026841 Root M e a n Square Error 0.059297 M e a n of Response 0.041812 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 64 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.00962588 0.009626 62 0.21799991 0.003516 63 0.22762579 F Ratio 2.7376 Prob>F 0.1031 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.0558352 -0.001361 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.011259 4.96 0.000822 -1.65 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.1031 Lower 9 5 % 0.0333282 -0.003005 Upper 9 5 % 0.0783421 0.0002833 001482 A ll P a r tic ip a n ts C h em ica l O perators Appendix G Page 20 = Linear Ft L in ea r F it M 5 7 0 p p m = 0.37266 - 0.00856 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.031978 RSquare Adj 0.016364 Root M e a n Square Error 0.431404 M e a n of Response 0.28442 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 64 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.381171 0.381171 62 11.538802 0.186110 63 11.919973 F R atio 2.0481 P rob > F 0.1574 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.3726642 -0.008563 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.081915 4.55 0.005984 -1.43 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.1574 Low er 95% 0.208919 -0.020525 U pper 95% 0.5364095 0.0033979 001483 All Participants Chemical Operators PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 21 mm = retr Fi L in e a r Fit P F O S A d f p p m = 0.10868 - 0.00198 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.018323 RSquare Adj 0.002489 Root M e a n Square Error 0.132746 M e a n of Response 0.088272 Observations (or S u m W gts) 64 Source Model Error C T otal A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.0203920 0.020392 62 1.0925409 0.017622 63 1.1129329 F R atio 1.1572 P rob > F 0.2862 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.1086821 -0.001981 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.025206 4.31 0.001841 -1.08 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.2862 Low er 95% 0.0582964 -0.005661 U pper 95% 0.1590678 0.0016999 001484 All Participants Chemical Operators M556 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 22 YRSCHEM = Linea FI L in ea r F it M 5 5 6 d f p p m = 0.09703 - 0.00222 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.072552 RSquare Adj 0.057593 Root M e a n Square Error 0.072643 M e a n of Response 0.074167 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 64 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.02559413 0.025594 62 0.32717681 0.005277 63 0.35277094 F R atio 4.8501 P rob > F 0.0314 T erm In tercep t YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.0970334 -0.002219 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.013793 7.03 0.001008 -2.20 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0314 Low er 95% 0.0694607 -0.004233 U pper 95% 0.1246062 -0.000205 001485 All Participants Engineer/Lab PFOS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 23 RSCHEH = Lira Ft L in ea r F it P F O S d f p p m = 0.36243 + 0.01624 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.158643 RSquareAdj 0.134604 Root M e a n Square Error 0.504597 M e a n of Response 0.611027 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 37 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares 1 1.680348 35 8.911651 36 10.591999 E stim ate 0.3624261 0.016237 P aram eter E stim a tes S td Error t R atio 0.127461 2.84 0.00632 2.57 M ean Square 1.68035 0.25462 F R atio 6.5995 P rob > F 0.0146 P ro b > |t| 0.0074 0.0146 Low er 95% 0.1036677 0.0034058 U pper 95% 0.6211844 0.0290681 001486 All Participants Engineer/Lab PFHS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 24 RSCHEM = Linear FI L in e a r Fit P F H S d f p p m = 0.08056 + 0.00441 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.091924 RSquare Adj 0.065979 Root M e a n Square Error 0.186981 M e a n of Response 0.148053 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 37 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.1238708 0.123871 35 1.2236624 0.034962 36 1.3475332 F Ratio 3.5430 Prob>F 0.0681 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.0805558 0.0044085 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.047231 1.71 0.002342 1.88 Prob>|t| 0.0970 0.0681 Lower 9 5 % -0.015328 -0.000346 Upper 9 5 % 0.1764397 0.0091631 001487 All Participants Engineer/Lab POAAppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 25 YRSCHEM = Urta Ft Linear Fit P O A A p p m = 0.30344 + 0.00257 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.005873 RSquare Adj -0.02253 Root M e a n Square Error 0.45092 M e a n of Response 0.342765 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 37 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.0420387 0.042039 35 7.1165096 0.203329 36 7.1585483 F Ratio 0.2068 Prob>F 0.6521 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.3034436 0.0025682 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.113902 2.66 0.005648 0.45 Prob>|t| 0.0116 0.6521 Lower 9 5 % 0.0722111 -0.008898 Upper 9 5 % 0.534676 0.0140344 001488 All Participants Engineer/Lab PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 26 HEM = Lre R Linear Fit P F O S A A d f p p m = 0.01271 - 0.0002 Y R S C H E M Su m m a ry of Fit RSquare 0.026565 RSquare Adj -0.00125 Root M e a n Square Error 0.016393 M e a n of Response 0.009642 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 37 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.00025666 0.000257 35 0.00940502 0.000269 36 0.00966167 F Ratio 0.9551 Prob>F 0.3351 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.0127146 -0.000201 Parameter Estimates Std Error tRatio 0.004141 3.07 0.000205 -0.98 Prob>|t| 0.0041 0.3351 Lower 9 5 % 0.0043085 -0.000618 Upper 9 5 % 0.0211207 0.0002162 001489 All Participants Engineer/Lab M570 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 27 WSCHEM Linear FI L in e a r Fit M 5 7 0 p p m = 0.06607 - 0.00016 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.000864 RSquare Adj -0.02768 Root M e a n Square Error 0.075116 M e a n of Response 0.063565 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 37 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.00017081 0.000171 35 0.19748202 0.005642 36 0.19765282 F R atio 0.0303 P rob > F 0.8629 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.0660713 -0.000164 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.018974 3.48 0.000941 -0.17 P ro b > |t| 0.0014 0.8629 Low er 95% 0.0275519 -0.002074 U pper 95% 0.1045907 0.0017464 001490 All Participants Engineer/Lab PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 28 YRSCHEM = Linear FI Linear Fit P F O S A d f p p m = 0.01025 + 0.00007 Y R S C H E M Summary of Fit RSquare 0.002597 RSquare Adj -0.0259 Root M e a n Square Error 0.019338 M e a n of Response 0.011372 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 37 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.00003408 0.000034 35 0.01308800 0.000374 36 0.01312208 F Ratio 0.0911 Prob>F 0.7645 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.0102528 0.0000731 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.004885 2.10 0.000242 0.30 Prob>|t| 0.0431 0.7645 Lower 9 5 % 0.0003365 -0.000419 Upper 9 5 % 0.0201692 0.0005649 001491 All Participants Englneer/Lab M556 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 29 WCHEU -- Lnetr FI Linear Fit M556dfippm = 0.03151 - 0.00049 Y R S C H E M Su m m a ry of Fit RSquare 0.013353 RSquare Adj -0.01484 Root M e a n Square Error 0.056294 M e a n of Response 0.024078 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 37 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.00150111 0.001501 35 0.11091707 0.003169 36 0.11241818 F Ratio 0.4737 Prob>F 0.4958 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.0315087 -0.000485 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.01422 2.22 0.000705 -0.69 Prob>|t| 0.0333 0.4958 Lower 9 5 % 0.0026409 -0.001917 Upper 9 5 % 0.0603766 0.0009462 001492 All Participants Maintenance PFOS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 30 flSCHQI = LineorFi Source M odel E rror C T otal T erm In tercep t YRSCHEM L in ea r Fit P F O S d f p p m = 1.03905 + 0.07695 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.332684 RSquare Adj 0.288196 Root M e a n Square Error 1.203104 M e a n of Response 1.772294 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 17 A n a ly sis o f V arian ce OF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 10.824249 10.8242 15 21.711881 1.4475 16 32.536130 F R atio 7.4781 P rob > F 0.0154 E stim ate 1.0390494 0.0769454 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.396284 2.62 0.028138 2.73 P ro b > |t| 0.0192 0.0154 Low er 95% 0.1943936 0.0169718 U pper 95% 1.8837052 0.1369191 001493 All Participants Maintenance PFHS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 31 tRSCHEM = Liw r Ft L in e a r F it P FH Sdfppm = 0.07257 + 0.02482 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.551529 RSquare Adj 0.521631 Root M e a n Square Error 0.247055 M e a n of Response 0.309053 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 17 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 1.1259357 1.12594 15 0.9155453 0.06104 16 2.0414810 F R atio 18.4470 P rob > F 0.0006 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.0725662 0.0248165 P aram eter E stim ates Std Error t Ratio 0.081376 0.89 0.005778 4.29 Prob>|t| 0.3866 0.0006 Lower 9 5 % -0.100882 0.012501 Upper 9 5 % 0.2460149 0.037132 001494 All Participants Maintenance POAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 32 ttSCHEM = UnetrFt Source M odel Error C T otal T erm Intercept YRSCHEM L in ea r Fit P O A A p p m = 0.92588 + 0.06146 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.221317 RSquare Adj 0.169404 Root M e a n Square Error 1.272661 M e a n of Response 1.511529 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 17 A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 6.905100 6.90510 15 24.295008 1.61967 16 31.200108 F R atio 4.2633 P rob > F 0.0567 E stim ate 0.9258836 0.0614567 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.419195 2.21 0.029764 2.06 P ro b > |t| 0.0432 0.0567 Low er 95% 0.0323938 -0.001984 U pper 95% 1.8193733 0.1248977 001495 All Participants Maintenance PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 33 WHEW = Linen Fl Linear Fit P F O S A A d f p p m = 0.04575 - 0.00095 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.064237 RSquare Adj 0.001853 Root M e a n Square Error 0.040022 M e a n of Response 0.036697 Observations (or S u m W gts) 17 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance OF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.00164936 0.001649 15 0.02402685 0.001602 16 0.02567621 F Ratio 1.0297 Prob>F 0.3263 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.0457483 -0.00095 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.013183 3.47 0.000936 -1.01 Prob>|t| 0.0034 0.3263 Lower 9 5 % 0.01765 -0.002945 Upper 9 5 % 0.0738465 0.0010453 001496 All Participants Maintenance M570 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 34 RSCHEM = lin Fl L in ea r F it M 5 7 0 p p m = 0.21068 + 0.00273 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.03116 RSquare Adj -0.03343 Root M e a n Square Error 0.168111 M e a n of Response 0.236706 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 17 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.01363420 0.013634 15 0.42392181 0.028261 16 0.43755601 F R atio 0.4824 P rob > F 0.4979 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.2106824 0.0027309 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.055373 3.80 0.003932 0.69 P ro b > |t| 0.0017 0.4979 Low er 95% 0.0926575 -0.005649 U pper 95% 0.3287074 0.0111111 001497 All Participants Maintenance PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 35 RSCHEM = Lmr fl Linear Fit PFOSAdfjppm = 0.05937 + 0.00069 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y of Fit RSquare 0.00258 RSquare Adj -0.06391 Root M e a n Square Error 0.149807 M e a n of Response 0.065944 Observations (or S u m W gts) 17 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.00087072 0.000871 15 0.33663010 0.022442 16 0.33750082 F Ratio 0.0388 Prob>F 0.8465 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Parameter Estimates Estimate Std Error 0.0593671 0.049344 0.0006901 0.003504 t Ratio 1.20 0.20 Prob>|t| 0.2476 0.8465 001498 All Participants Maintenance M556 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 36 WHO* = Linear ft L in e a r F it M 5 5 6 d f p p m = 0.07814 + 0.001 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.011725 RSquare Adj -0.05416 Root M e a n Square Error 0.101656 M e a n of Response 0.0877 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 17 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.00183898 0.001839 15 0.15500978 0.010334 16 0.15684876 F R atio 0.1780 P rob > F 0.6791 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.0781426 0.0010029 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.033484 2.33 0.002377 0.42 P ro b > |t| 0.0339 0.6791 Low er 95% 0.0067735 -0.004065 U pper 95% 0 .1 4 9 5 1 1 8 0 .0 0 6 0 7 0 4 001499 All Participants Supervisors/Mgmt PFOS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 37 fflSCHEM = lineo Ft Linear Fit P F O S df p p m = -0.2184 + 0.094 Y R S C H E M Su m m a ry of Fit RSquare 0.194588 RSquareAdj 0.161029 Root M e a n Square Error 2.073295 M e a n of Response 1.732181 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 26 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 24.92474 24.9247 24 103.16526 4.2986 25 128.09000 F Ratio 5.7984 Prob>F 0.0241 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -0.218386 0.0940032 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.906363 -0.24 0.039038 2.41 Prob>|t| 0.8116 0.0241 Lower 9 5 % -2.089012 0.0134332 Upper 9 5 % 1.6522407 0.1745732 001500 All Participants Supervisors/Mgmt PFHS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 38 'IRSCHEM = nesrfl Linear Fit P F H S d f p p m = 0.04486 + 0.01663 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.185071 RSquare Adj 0.151116 Root M e a n Square Error 0.378289 M e a n of Response 0.389914 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 26 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.7799725 0.779972 24 3.4344674 0.143103 25 4.2144399 F Ratio 5.4504 Prob>F 0.0283 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.0448618 0.016629 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.165373 0.27 0.007123 2.33 Prob>|t| 0.7885 0.0283 Lower 9 5 % -0.296449 0.0019284 Upper 9 5 % 0.3861726 0.0313297 001501 All Participants Supervisors/Mgmt POAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 39 SCHEH = Lieo Fi L in e a r Fit P O A A p p m = 0.17876 + 0.05352 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.193609 RSquareAdj 0.160009 Root M e a n Square Error 1.184218 M e a n of Response 1.2894 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 26 Source Model Error C T otal A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 8.080800 8.08080 24 33.656935 1.40237 25 41.737735 F R atio 5.7622 P rob > F 0.0245 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.1787618 0.0535247 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.517694 0.35 0.022298 2.40 P ro b > |t| 0.7329 0.0245 Low er 95% -0.889697 0.007505 U pper 95% 1.2472201 0.0995444 001502 All Participants Supervisors/Mgmt PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 40 WHEM = mf Linear Fit P F O S A A d f p p m = 0.00564 + 0.00016 Y R S C H E M S ummary of Fit RSquare 0.023751 RSquare Adj -0.01693 Root M e a n Square Error 0.011408 M e a n of Response 0.009045 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 26 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.00007599 0.000076 24 0.00312335 0.000130 25 0.00319934 F Ratio 0.5839 Prob>F 0.4522 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.0056392 0.0001641 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.004987 1.13 0.000215 0.76 Prob>|t| 0.2693 0.4522 Lower 9 5 % -0.004654 -0.000279 Upper 9 5 % 0.0159319 0.0006075 001503 All Participants Supervsors/Mgmt M570 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 41 = U ro FI Linear Fit M 5 7 0 p p m = 0.03728 + 0.00349 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.081466 RSquareAdj 0.043194 Root M e a n Square Error 0.127205 M e a n of Response 0.109788 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 26 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.03444346 0.034443 24 0.38834961 0.016181 25 0.42279307 F Ratio 2.1286 Prob>F 0.1575 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.0372783 0.0034945 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.055609 0.67 0.002395 1.46 Prob>|t| 0.5090 0.1575 Lower 9 5 % -0.077493 -0.001449 Upper 9 5 % 0.1520492 0.0084378 001504 All Participants Supervlsors/Mgmt PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 42 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 RSCHEH -- lirafl Linear Fit P F O S A d f p p m = -0.0169 + 0.00333 Y R S C H E M Sum ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.075283 RSquare Adj 0.036753 Root M e a n Square Error 0.126709 M e a n of Response 0.052267 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 26 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.03137008 0.031370 24 0.38532631 0.016055 25 0.41669639 F Ratio 1.9539 Prob>F 0.1750 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -0.016933 0.0033349 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.055392 -0.31 0.002386 1.40 Prob>|t| 0.7625 0.1750 Lower 9 5 % -0.131256 -0.001589 Upper 9 5 % 0.0973903 0.008259 001505 All Participants Supervlsors/Mgmt M556 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 43 SSCHEM = nwFt Linear Fit M556df]ppm = -0.0067 + 0.00235 Y R S C H E M S u mm a r y of Fit RSquare 0.101017 RSquare Adj 0.061931 Root M e a n Square Error 0.072994 M e a n of Response 0.04378 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 25 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.01377030 0.013770 23 0.12254662 0.005328 24 0.13631692 F Ratio 2.5845 Prob>F 0.1216 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -0.006656 0.0023503 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.034603 -0.19 0.001462 1.61 Prob>|t| 0.8491 0.1216 Lower 9 5 % -0.078239 -0.000674 Upper 9 5 % 0.0649258 0.0053745 001506 A ll P a r tic ip a n ts Appendix G Page 44 001507 All Participants Mill Operators PFHS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 45 W HEW 001508 All Participants Mill Operators POAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 46 YRSCHEM 001509 All Participants Mill Operators PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 47 001510 A ll P a r tic ip a n ts M ill O p e r a to r s ____________ M 570ppm By Y R SC H E M ____________ 0 1 ? - |----*-------------------------------------------------------------- 0.10 - 0.08 ~ G. | 0.06 - ; a a 0.04 " | - a 0 02 T - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - - - - 0 5 10 15 20 25 HEM Appendix G Page 48 001511 All Participants Mill Operators PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 49 HEW 001512 All Participants Mill Operators M556 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix G Page 50 HEM 001513 Appendix H Page 1 Appendix H Scatterplots and regression equations for fluorochemicals (natural log transformation) by years worked in chemical (YRSCHEM) for all chemical participants (n = 187) and for two current job categories (chemcial operators and engineer/lab) 001514 All Participants In PFOS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix H Page 2 KRSCHEM = IrenFI L in e a r F it In P F O S d f p p m = -0.493 + 0.02935 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.098178 RSquare Adj 0.093304 Root M e a n Square Error 1.002959 M e a n of Response -0.13123 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 187 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 20.25968 20.2597 185 186.09638 1.0059 186 206.35607 F R atio 20.1403 P rob > F <.0001 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -0.493042 0.0293465 P ara m eter E stim ates Std Error t Ratio 0.108991 -4.52 0.006539 4.49 Prob>|t| <.0001 <.0001 Lower 9 5 % -0.708069 0.0164454 Upper 9 5 % -0.278015 0.0422476 00151S Ail Participants In PFHS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix H Page 3 YRSCHEU -- Linear ft Source Model Error C Total T erm Intercept YRSCHEM L in e a r Fit In P FH Sd fp p m = -2.5211 + 0.05519 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.226387 RSquare Adj 0.222205 Root M e a n Square Error 1.150356 M e a n of Response -1.84074 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 187 A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 71.64131 71.6413 185 244.81410 1.3233 186 316.45541 F R atio 54.1376 P rob > F <.0001 E stim ate -2.52111 0.055185 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.125008 -20.17 0.0075 7.36 P ro b > |t| <.0001 <.0001 Low er 95% -2.767738 0.040388 U pper 95% -2.274482 0.0699821 001516 All Participants In POAA ppm By YRSCHEM 200 - 1.00 - . . * . : ' p: 0.00 - lhl *" 1.-1.00 ~ r 2' -2.00 - ! JR -3.00 - 1 r i " ! ---------~--~---------;--- "-- . . r 1* ! . , -.00 - -- 05 1' 1 T T-"| r--j , - | 1 1 1 1 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 YRSCHEM Appendix H Page 4 = Uneorfi L in ea r F it In P O A A p p m = -0.3289 + 0.00943 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.006732 RSquare Adj 0.001363 Root M e a n Square Error 1.291882 M e a n of Response -0.21266 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 187 Source M odel Error C T otal A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 2.09272 2.09272 185 308.75765 1.66896 186 310.85036 F R atio 1.2539 P rob > F 0.2643 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate -0.328943 0.0094318 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.140388 -2.34 0.008423 1.12 P ro b > |t| 0.0202 0.2643 Low er 95% -0.605913 -0.007186 U pper 95% -0.051973 0.0260493 001517 All Participants In PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix H Page 5 YRSCHEM = Linear Ft Source Model Error C T otal T erm Intercept YRSCHEM L in e a r F it In P F O S A A d f p p m = -4.4107 - 0.03347 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.06056 RSquare Adj 0.055482 Root M e a n Square Error 1.486622 M e a n of Response -4.82337 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 187 A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF S u m o f S q u a r e s M ea n S q u a r e 1 26.35653 26.3565 185 408.85842 2.2100 186 435.21495 F R atio 11.9258 P rob > F 0.0007 E stim ate -4.410692 -0.033472 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.16155 -27.30 0.009693 -3.45 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0007 Low er 95% -4.729413 -0.052595 U pper 95% -4.091972 -0.01435 001518 All Participants In M570ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix H Page 6 RSCHEM = Lira ft L in e a r Fit ln 570ppm = -2.4506 - 0.00984 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.009202 RSquare Adj 0.003846 Root M e a n Square Error 1.151312 M e a n of Response -2.57193 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 187 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 2.27743 2.27743 185 245.22096 1.32552 186 247.49839 F R atio 1.7181 P rob > F 0.1916 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate -2.450623 -0.009839 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.125112 -19.59 0.007506 -1.31 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.1916 Low er 95% -2.697456 -0.024649 U pper 95% -2.20379 0.0049701 001519 Ail Participants In PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix H Page 7 YRSCHEM = Unesrft Linear Fit In P F O S A d f p p m = -4.4035 - 0.01431 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y of Fit RSquare 0.007678 RSquare Adj 0.002314 Root M e a n Square Error 1.834221 M e a n of Response -4.57987 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 187 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 4.81599 4.81599 185 622.40775 3.36437 186 627.22374 F Ratio 1.4315 Prob>F 0.2331 T erm In tercep t YRSCH EM E stim ate -4 .4 0 3 4 6 3 -0 .0 1 4 3 0 8 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0 .1 9 9 3 2 3 -2 2 .0 9 0 .0 1 1 9 5 9 -1 .2 0 P ro b > |t| < .0 0 0 1 0 .2 3 3 1 L ow er 95% -4 .7 9 6 7 0 6 -0 .0 3 7 9 0 2 U pper 95% -4 .0 1 0 2 2 0 .0 0 9 2 8 5 5 001520 All Participants In M556 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix H Page 8 YRSCHEM -- Linear Fi Linear Fit In M 55 6d f p p m = -3.7337 - 0.00771 Y R S C H E M Summary ot Fit RSquare 0.00447 RSquare Adj -0.00094 Root M e a n Square Error 1.298323 M e a n of Response -3.82913 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 186 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 1.39270 1.39270 184 310.15820 1.68564 185 311.55090 F Ratio 0.8262 Prob>F 0.3646 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -3.733702 -0.007709 Parameter Estimates Std Error tRatio 0.141718 -26.35 0.008481 -0.91 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.3646 Lower 9 5 % -4.013306 -0.024441 Upper 9 5 % -3.454098 0.0090235 001521 All Participants Chemical Operators In PFOS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix H Page 9 YRSCHEM = tar ft Linear Fit In P F O S d f p p m = 0.19093 + 0.01954 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y of Fit RSquare 0.067842 RSquare Adj 0.052807 Root M e a n Square Error 0.663197 M e a n of Response 0.392284 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 64 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 1.984648 1.98465 62 27.269497 0.43983 63 29.254145 F Ratio 4.5123 Prob>F 0.0376 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.1909269 0.0195403 Parameter Estimates Std Error tRatio 0.125927 1.52 0.009199 2.12 Prob>|t| 0.1346 0.0376 Lower 9 5 % -0.060798 0.0011521 Upper 9 5 % 0.4426522 0.0379285 001522 Ail Participants Appendix H Page 10 = Linen ft Linear Fit In P F H S d f p p m = -1.7282 + 0.04829 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.28459 RSquare Adj 0.273051 Root M e a n Square Error 0.701066 M e a n of Response -1.23054 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 64 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 12.122007 12.1220 62 30.472595 0.4915 63 42.594602 F Ratio 24.6636 Prob>F <.0001 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -1.72818 0.0482922 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.133118 -12.98 0.009724 4.97 Prob>|t| <.0001 <.0001 Lower 9 5 % -1.994279 0.028854 Upper 9 5 % -1.462081 0.0677304 001523 All Participants Chemical Operators !n POAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix H Page 11 YRSCHEM = LreuFt Linear Fit In P O A A p p m = 0.45333 + 0.01564 Y R S C H E M Sum ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.051828 RSquare Adj 0.036535 Root M e a n Square Error 0.612605 M e a n of Response 0.614523 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 64 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 1.271823 1.27182 62 23.267630 0.37528 63 24.539453 F Ratio 3.3890 Prob>F 0.0704 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.4533333 0.0156424 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.116321 3.90 0.008497 1.84 Prob>|t| 0.0002 0.0704 Lower 9 5 % 0.220811 -0.001343 Upper 9 5 % 0.6858555 0.0326278 001524 All Participants Appendix H Page 12 = linen ft Linear Fit In P F O S A A d f p p m = -4.0532-0.02268 Y R S C H E M Sum ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.016184 RSquareAdj 0.000316 Root M e a n Square Error 1.619017 M e a n of Response -4.28694 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 64 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 2.67335 2.67335 62 162.51531 2.62121 63 165.18867 F Ratio 1.0199 Prob>F 0.3165 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -4.053244 -0.022679 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.307418 -13.18 0.022456 -1.01 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.3165 Lower 9 5 % -4.667764 -0.067569 Upper 9 5 % -3.438725 0.0222112 001525 All Participants Chemical Operators In M570ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix H Page 13 YRSCHEM Linea Ft T erm In te r ce p t YRSCH EM Source M odel E rror C T otal L in e a r F it ln 570ppm = -1.5009 - 0.04316 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.10729 RSquareAdj 0.092891 Root M e a n Square Error 1.139966 M e a n of Response -1.94564 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 64 A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square I 9.683322 9.68332 62 80.570389 1.29952 63 90.253710 F R atio 7.4514 P rob > F 0.0082 E stim ate -1.500868 -0.043162 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.216456 -6.93 0.015812 -2.73 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0082 Low er 95% -1.933557 -0.074769 U pper 95% -1.068179 -0.011555 001526 Ail Participants Chemical Operators In PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix H Page 14 YRSCHEM = Linen Ft L in e a r F it In P F O S A d f p p m = -3.4933 - 0.03575 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.030317 RSquare Adj 0.014677 Root M e a n Square Error 1.851004 M e a n of Response -3.8617 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 64 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 6.64144 6.64144 62 212.42545 3.42622 63 219.06689 F R atio 1.9384 P rob > F 0.1688 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate -3.49335 -0.035745 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.351467 -9.94 0.025674 -1.39 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.1688 Low er 95% -4.195923 -0.087068 U pper 95% -2.790777 0.0155766 001527 All Participants Appendix H Page 15 = Lineai F T erm Intercept YRSCH EM Source M odel E rror C T otal L in e a r Fit In M 55 6d f p p m = -2.7891 - 0.03042 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o t F it RSquare 0.063375 RSquare Adj 0.048268 Root M e a n Square Error 1.070608 M e a n of Response -3.10248 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 64 A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 4.808428 4.80843 62 71.064468 1.14620 63 75.872896 F R atio 4.1951 P rob > F 0.0448 E stim ate -2.789057 -0.030415 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.203286 -13.72 0.01485 -2.05 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0448 L ow er 95% -3.19542 -0.0601 U pper 95% -2.382693 -0.000731 001528 All Participants Engineer/Lab Appendix H Page 16 = Lineor Ft L in e a r F it In P F O S d f p p m = -1.5212 + 0.03794 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.250379 RSquare Adj 0.228961 Root M e a n Square Error 0.885804 M e a n of Response -0.94033 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 37 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 9.172752 9.17275 35 27.462686 0.78465 36 36.635438 F R atio 11.6903 P rob > F 0.0016 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate -1.521161 0.0379363 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.223754 -6.80 0.011095 3.42 P ro b > |t| <0001 0.0016 Low er 95% -1.975403 0.0154116 U pper 95% -1.06692 0.060461 001529 All Participants Engineer/Lab Appendix fPage 17 = Linear ff L in e a r Fit ln P F H S d f p p m = -3.3667 + 0.05024 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.291558 RSquare Adj 0.271317 Root M e a n Square Error 1.056855 M e a n of Response -2.5975 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 37 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 16.088669 16.0887 35 39.092987 1.1169 36 55.181656 F R atio 14.4042 P rob > F 0.0006 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate -3.366746 0.0502418 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.266961 -12.61 0.013238 3.80 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0006 Low er 95% -3.908703 0.0233675 U pper 95% -2.824789 0.0771161 001530 Ail Participants Engineer/Lab Appendix H Page 18 = Lineai f i L in ea r Fit In P O A A p p m = -2.0155 + 0.02576 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.107494 RSquare Adj 0.081994 Root M e a n Square Error 1.001589 M e a n of Response -1.62112 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 37 Source M odel E rror C T otal A n alysis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 4.228818 4.22882 35 35.111285 1.00318 36 39.340103 F R atio 4.2154 P rob > F 0.0476 T erm Intercept YRSCH EM E stim ate -2.015494 0.0257581 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.253001 -7.97 0.012546 2.05 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0476 Low er 95% -2.52911 0.0002892 U pper 95% -1.501878 0.0512271 001531 All Participants Engineer/Lab In PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix H Page 19 YRSCHEM = Linear Ft L in e a r F it ln P F O S A A d f p p m = -5.5422 - 0.00745 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.005419 RSquare Adj -0.023 Root M e a n Square Error 1.362132 M e a n of Response -5.65628 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 37 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.353853 0.35385 35 64.939165 1.85540 36 65.293017 F R atio 0.1907 P rob > F 0.6650 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate -5.542201 -0.007451 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.344074 -16.11 0.017062 -0.44 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.6650 Low er 95% -6.240704 -0.042088 U pper 95% -4.843697 0.027186 001532 All Participants Engineer/Lab In M570ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix H Page 20 YRSCHEM = Lira Fi Linear Fit ln 5 70ppm = -3.3086 + 0.00738 Y R S C H E M S u mm a r y of Fit RSquare 0.010486 RSquare Adj -0.01779 Root M e a n Square Error 0.967617 M e a n of Response -3.19558 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 37 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.347256 0.347256 35 32.769885 0.936282 36 33.117141 F Ratio 0.3709 Prob>F 0.5465 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -3.308597 0.0073812 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.24442 -13.54 0.01212 0.61 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.5465 Lower 9 5 % -3.804792 -0.017224 Upper 9 5 % -2.812402 0.0319863 001533 All Participants Engineer/Lab In PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix H Page 21 W HEM = Linen if L in e a r Fit In P F O S A d f p p m = -5.8688 + 0.0086 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.005342 RSquare Adj -0.02308 Root M e a n Square Error 1.583297 M e a n of Response -5.7372 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 37 Source Model Error C T otal A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.471187 0.47119 35 87.739016 2.50683 36 88.210203 F R atio 0.1880 P rob > F 0.6673 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate -5.868846 0.0085981 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.39994 -14.67 0.019832 0.43 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.6673 Low er 95% -6.680763 -0.031663 U pper 95% -5.056929 0.048859 001534 All Participants Engineer/Lab In M556 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix H Page 22 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 SSCHEM = L ira Li Linear Fit In M 5 5 6 d f p p m = -4.7368 + 0.00765 Y R S C H E M S ummary of Fit RSquare 0.00737 RSquare Adj -0.02099 Root M e a n Square Error 1.198158 M e a n of Response -4.61966 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 37 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.373036 0.37304 35 50.245432 1.43558 36 50.618468 F Ratio 0.2598 Prob>F 0.6134 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -4.736793 0.0076503 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.302654 -15.65 0.015008 0.51 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.6134 Lower 9 5 % -5.35121 -0.022817 Upper 9 5 % -4.122375 0.0381178 001535 Appendix I Page 1 Appendix I Random sample current job chemical operators (n = 47): Regression of fluorochemical on gender, years worked in chemical and age; followed by regression equation of fluorochemical on gender and years worked in chemical: 001536 Random Sample Chemical Operators In P F O S p p m S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mea n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0 .1 2 3 1 5 3 0 .0 6 1 9 7 8 0.575509 0.392725 47 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 3 2.000299 0.666766 43 14.242071 0.331211 46 16.242370 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error M ax R Sq 0.9796 L a c k o f Fit DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 41 13.910223 0.339274 2 0.331849 0.165924 43 14.242071 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE P ara m eter E stim ates E stim ate S td Error 0.0464337 0.412448 -0.20812 0.102882 0.0092881 0.010914 0.0029634 0.010819 t R atio 0.11 -2.02 0.85 0.27 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE N parm 1 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 1.3553627 1 0.2398607 1 0.0248502 F R atio 4.0921 0.7242 0.0750 F R atio 2.0131 P rob > F 0.1263 F R atio 2.0448 P rob > F 0.3833 P ro b > |t| 0.9109 0.0493 0.3995 0.7855 P rob > F 0.0493 0.3995 0.7855 Appendix ] Page 2 001537 Appendix I Page 3 Random Sample Chemical Operators In P F O S p p m S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.121623 0.081697 0.569428 0.392725 47 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 2 1 .9 7 5 4 4 8 0 .9 8 7 7 2 4 44 1 4.2 6 6 9 2 1 0 .3 2 4 2 4 8 46 1 6 .2 4 2 3 7 0 F R atio 3 .0 4 6 2 P rob > F 0 .0 5 7 7 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error M ax R Sq 0 .8 1 2 2 L a c k o f F it DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 26 1 1 .2 1 5 9 3 6 0 .4 3 1 3 8 2 18 3 .0 5 0 9 8 5 0 .1 6 9 4 9 9 4 4 1 4 .2 6 6 9 2 1 F R atio 2 .5 4 5 0 P rob > F 0 .0 2 2 1 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM E stim ate 0 .1 5 2 7 0 5 -0 .2 0 7 9 4 9 0 .0 1 0 9 4 9 4 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0 .1 3 8 4 8 2 1 .1 0 0 .1 0 1 7 9 3 -2 .0 4 0 .0 0 8 9 7 8 1 .2 2 P ro b > |t| 0 .2 7 6 2 0 .0 4 7 1 0 .2 2 9 1 Low er 95% -0 .1 2 6 3 8 7 -0 .4 1 3 0 9 8 -0 .0 0 7 1 4 5 Source GENDER YRSCHEM N parm 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 1 .3 5 3 1 8 7 7 1 0 .4 8 2 2 5 0 6 F R atio 4 .1 7 3 3 - 1 .4 8 7 3 P rob > F 0 .0 4 7 1 0 .2 2 9 1 U pper 95% 0 .4 3 1 7 9 7 -0 .0 0 2 8 0 .0 2 9 0 4 3 8 001538 Random Sample Chemical Operators In P F H S p p m S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.47973 0.443432 0.584505 -1.17704 47 Source Model E rror C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 3 13.546050 4.51535 43 14.690763 0.34165 46 28.236813 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total E r r o r M ax R Sq 0.9884 L a c k o f Fit DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 41 14.362568 0.350307 2 0.328195 0.164098 43 14.690763 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE P ara m eter E stim ates E stim ate S td Error -1.869781 0.418894 -0.347847 0.10449 0.047003 0.011085 -0.000586 0.010988 t R atio -4.46 -3.33 4.24 -0.05 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE N parm 1 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 3.7861950 1 6.1426340 1 0.0009719 F R atio 11.0822 17.9795 0.0028 F R atio 13.2165 P rob > F <.0001 F R atio 2.1347 P rob > F 0.3707 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0018 0.0001 0.9577 P rob > F 0.0018 0.0001 0.9577 Appendix I Page 4 001539 Appendix I Page 5 Random Sample Chemical Operators In P F H S p p m S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mea n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.479696 0.456046 0.577843 -1.17704 47 Source Model Error C T otal A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 2 13.545078 6.77254 44 14.691735 0.33390 46 28.236813 F R atio 20.2829 P rob > F <.0001 Source L ack o f F it Pure Error Total Error M ax R Sq 0.8933 L a c k o f F it DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 26 11.677832 0.449147 18 3.013903 0.167439 44 14.691735 F R atio 2.6825 P rob > F 0.0170 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM E stim ate -1.890797 -0.34788 0.0466744 P aram eter E stim ates Std Error t R atio 0.140529 -13.45 0.103297 -3.37 0.009111 5.12 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0016 <.0001 Low er 95% -2.174014 -0.556062 0.0283126 U pper 95% -1.60758 -0.139699 0.0650363 Source GENDER YRSCHEM N parm 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 3.7870700 1 8.7629557 F R atio 11.3418 26.2440 P rob > F 0.0016 <.0001 001540 Random Sample Chemical Operators In P O A A p p m Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.197237 0.14123 0.590899 0.635094 47 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance OF S u m of Squares Mean Square 3 3.688886 1.22963 43 15.013959 0.34916 46 18.702845 F Ratio 3.5217 Prob>F 0.0228 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.9950 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 41 14.919738 0.363896 2 0.094221 0.047111 43 15.013959 F Ratio 7.7243 Prob>F 0.1211 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE Parameter Estimates Estimate Std Error 0.3398931 0.423477 -0.318303 0.105633 0.008909 0.011206 0.0003393 0.011108 t Ratio 0.80 -3.01 0.80 0.03 Prob>|t| 0.4266 0.0043 0.4310 0.9758 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE Nparm 1 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 3.1703565 1 0.2206817 1 0.0003258 F Ratio 9.0799 0.6320 0.0009 Prob>F 0.0043 0.4310 0.9758 Appendix I Page 6 001541 Appendix I Page 7 Random Sample Chemical Operators In POAA ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.197219 0.160729 0.584152 0.635094 47 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 3.688560 1.84428 44 15.014285 0.34123 46 18.702845 F Ratio 5.4047 Prob>F 0.0080 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.8758 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 26 12.692319 0.488166 18 2.321965 0.128998 44 15.014285 F Ratio 3.7843 Prob>F 0.0025 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM Estimate 0.3520616 -0.318283 0.0090993 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.142063 2.48 0.104425 -3.05 0.00921 0.99 Prob>|t| 0.0171 0.0039 0.3286 Lower 9 5 % 0.0657529 -0.528737 -0.009463 Upper 9 5 % 0.6383704 -0.107829 0.0276616 Source GENDER YRSCHEM Nparm 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 3.1700833 1 0.3330469 F Ratio 9.2901 0.9760 Prob>F 0.0039 0.3286 001542 Random Sample Chemical Operators In PFOSAA ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.094899 0.031753 1.570558 -4.4836 47 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 3 11.12095 3.70698 43 106.06607 2.46665 46 117.18701 F Ratio 1.5028 Prob>F 0.2274 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.9297 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 41 97.82374 2.38594 2 8.24233 4.12116 43 106.06607 F Ratio 0.5789 Prob>F 0.8095 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE Parameter Estimates Estimate Std Error -5.751677 1.125565 -0.441575 0.280763 -0.042433 0.029785 0.0352765 0.029525 t Ratio -5.11 -1.57 -1.42 1.19 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.1231 0.1615 0.2387 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE Nparm 1 1 I Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 6.1015043 1 5.0062176 1 3.5213341 F Ratio 2.4736 2.0296 1.4276 Prob>F 0.1231 0.1615 0.2387 Appendix I Page 8 001543 Appendix I Page 9 Random Sample Chemical Operators In P F O S A A p p m S u m m a r y of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.06485 0.022343 1.578171 -4.4836 47 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 7.59961 3.79981 44 109.58740 2.49062 46 117.18701 F Ratio 1.5256 Prob>F 0.2288 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.6366 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 26 66.99736 2.57682 18 42.59004 2.36611 44 109.58740 F Ratio 1.0891 Prob>F 0.4335 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM Estimate -4.486637 -0.439541 -0.022657 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.383804 -11.69 0.282119 -1.56 0.024883 -0.91 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.1264 0.3675 Lower 9 5 % -5.260141 -1.008113 -0.072806 Upper 9 5 % -3.713133 0.1290304 0.0274916 Source GENDER YRSCHEM Nparm 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 6.0456409 1 2.0649335 F Ratio 2.4274 0.8291 Prob>F 0.1264 0.3675 001544 Random Sample Chemical Operators In M570ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Sq uare Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.136842 0.076621 1.107108 -2.03122 47 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 3 8.355583 2.78519 43 52.704577 1.22569 46 61.060161 F Ratio 2.2724 Prob>F 0.0937 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.9962 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square F Ratio 41 52.472382 1.27981 11.0236 2 0.232195 0.11610 Prob>F 43 52.704577 0.0865 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE Parameter Estimates Estimate Std Error -1.704276 0.793426 -0.294632 0.197914 -0.038358 0.020996 -0.001758 0.020812 t Ratio -2.15 -1.49 -1.83 -0.08 Prob>|t| 0.0374 0.1439 0.0747 0.9331 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE Nparm 1 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 2.7163591 1 4.0909545 1 0.0087486 F Ratio 2.2162 3.3377 0.0071 Prob>F 0.1439 0.0747 0.9331 Appendix I Page 10 001545 Appendix I Page 11 Random Sample Chemical Operators In M570 p p m Su m m a ry of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.136699 0.097458 1.094546 -2.03122 47 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 8.346835 4.17342 44 52.713326 1.19803 46 61.060161 F Ratio 3.4836 Prob>F 0.0394 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.7132 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 26 35.199258 1.35382 18 17.514068 0.97300 44 52.713326 F Ratio 1.3914 Prob>F 0.2365 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM Estimate -1.767331 -0.294733 -0.039344 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.266189 -6.64 0.195665 -1.51 0.017258 -2.28 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.1391 0.0275 Lower 9 5 % -2.303797 -0.689068 -0.074125 Upper 9 5 % -1.230864 0.0996013 -0.004563 Source GENDER YRSCHEM Nparm 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 2.7183290 1 6.2266074 F Ratio 2.2690 5.1974 Prob>F 0.1391 0.0275 001546 Random Sample Chemical Operators In P F O S A p p m S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.040282 -0.02667 1.861868 -3.57167 47 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 3 6.25657 2.08552 43 149.06169 3.46655 46 155.31826 F Ratio 0.6016 Prob>F 0.6175 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.9763 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 41 145.38604 3.54600 2 3.67565 1.83782 43 149.06169 F Ratio 1.9295 Prob>F 0.4006 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE Parameter Estimates Estimate Std Error -2.698905 1.334337 -0.197181 0.33284 -0.023905 0.03531 -0.01721 0.035001 t Ratio -2.02 -0.59 -0.68 -0.49 Prob>|t| 0.0494 0.5567 0.5020 0.6254 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE Nparm 1 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 1.2166245 1 1.5888669 1 0.8381204 F Ratio 0.3510 0.4583 0.2418 Prob>F 0.5567 0.5020 0.6254 Appendix I Page 12 001547 Appendix i Page 13 Random Sample Chemical Operators In P F O S A p p m S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.034886 -0.00898 1.845756 -3.57167 47 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 5.41845 2.70923 44 149.89981 3.40681 46 155.31826 F Ratio 0.7952 Prob>F 0.4579 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.5686 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 26 82.89148 3.18813 18 67.00833 3.72268 44 149.89981 F Ratio 0.8564 Prob>F 0.6485 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM Estimate -3.316074 -0.198173 -0.033553 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.44888 -7.39 0.329953 -0.60 0.029102 -1.15 Prob>|tj <.0001 0.5512 0.2552 Lower 9 5 % -4.220728 -0.863148 -0.092205 Upper 9 5 % -2.411419 0.4668018 0.0250987 Source GENDER YRSCHEM Nparm 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 1.2289470 1 4.5285163 F Ratio 0.3607 1.3293 Prob>F 0.5512 0.2552 001548 Random Sample Chemical Operators In M 5 5 6 p p m Su m m a ry of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.127024 0.066119 1.108876 -3.12253 47 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 3 7.693385 2.56446 43 52.873065 1.22961 46 60.566451 F Ratio 2.0856 Prob>F 0.1162 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.9973 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square F Ratio 41 52.710027 1.28561 15.7707 2 0.163038 0.08152 Prob>F 43 52.873065 0.0613 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE Parameter Estimates Estimate Std Error -2.787872 0.794694 -0.340998 0.19823 -0.03131 0.02103 -0.004424 0.020846 t Ratio -3.51 -1.72 -1.49 -0.21 Prob>|t| 0.0011 0.0926 0.1438 0.8329 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE Nparm 1 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 3.6385764 1 2.7256630 1 0.0553796 F Ratio 2.9591 2.2167 0.0450 Prob>F 0.0926 0.1438 0.8329 Appendix I Page 14 001549 Appendix I Page 15 Random Sample Chemical Operators In M 5 5 6 p p m S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.12611 0.086387 1.096777 -3.12253 47 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 7.638006 3.81900 44 52.928445 1.20292 46 60.566451 F Ratio 3.1748 Prob>F 0.0515 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.7329 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 26 36.751620 1.41352 18 16.176825 0.89871 44 52.928445 F Ratio 1.5728 Prob>F 0.1616 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM Estimate -2.946517 -0.341253 -0.03379 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.266731 -11.05 0.196063 -1.74 0.017293 -1.95 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.0888 0.0571 Lower 9 5 % -3.484077 -0.736392 -0.068642 Upper 9 5 % -2.408957 0.0538852 0.0010617 Source GENDER YRSCHEM Nparm 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 3.6441565 1 4.5927300 F Ratio 3.0294 3.8180 Prob>F 0.0888 0.0571 001550 Appendix J Page 1 Appendix .1 Random sample current job engineer/lab group (n = 23): Regression of fluorochemical on gender, years worked in chemical and age; followed by regression equation of fluorochemical on gender and years worked in chemical: 001551 Appendix j Page 2 Random Sample Engineer/Lab In P F O S p p m Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.391004 0.294847 0.867828 -0.93898 23 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 3 9.187310 3.06244 19 14.309381 0.75313 22 23.496691 F Ratio 4.0663 Prob>F 0.0217 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.9810 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 18 13.862763 0.770154 1 0.446618 0.446618 19 14.309381 F Ratio 1.7244 Prob>F 0.5438 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE Estimate -0.616826 -0.561666 0.0467532 -0.031175 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 1.435087 -0.43 0.214754 -2.62 0.038427 1.22 0.047633 -0.65 Prob>|t| 0.6722 0.0170 0.2386 0.5206 Lower 9 5 % -3.620476 -1.011148 -0.033675 -0.130872 Upper 9 5 % 2.3868238 -0.112185 0.1271809 0.0685214 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE Nparm 1 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 5.1516007 1 1.1148580 1 0.3226016 F Ratio 6.8403 1.4803 0.4284 Prob>F 0.0170 0.2386 0.5206 001552 Appendix J Page 3 Random Sample Engineer/Lab In P F O S p p m S ummary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.377275 0.315002 0.855336 -0.93898 23 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 8.864708 4.43235 20 14.631983 0.73160 22 23.496691 F Ratio 6.0584 Prob>F 0.0088 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.8418 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 12 10.913717 0.909476 8 3.718265 0.464783 20 14.631983 F Ratio 1.9568 Prob>F 0.1735 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM Estimate -1.538619 -0.537774 0.0233371 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.271378 -5.67 0.208582 -2.58 0.013818 1.69 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.0180 0.1068 Lower 9 5 % -2.104699 -0.972865 -0.005487 Upper 9 5 % -0.972539 -0.102683 0.0521614 Source GENDER YRSCHEM Nparm 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 4.8631688 1 2.0866755 F Ratio 6.6473 2.8522 Prob>F 0.0180 0.1068 001553 Appendix J Page 4 Random Sample Engineer/Lab In P F H S p p m S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mea n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.427513 0.33712 1.074255 -2.54721 23 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 3 16.373916 5.45797 19 21.926470 1.15402 22 38.300386 F Ratio 4.7295 Prob>F 0.0125 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.9849 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 18 21.348414 1.18602 1 0.578056 0.57806 19 21.926470 F Ratio 2.0517 Prob>F 0.5060 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE Estimate -2.462716 -0.741805 0.0546509 -0.030306 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 1.776447 -1.39 0.265837 -2.79 0.047567 1.15 0.058963 -0.51 Prob>|t| 0.1817 0.0117 0.2648 0.6132 Lower 9 5 % -6.180835 -1.298203 -0.044908 -0.153717 Upper 9 5 % 1.2554025 -0.185407 0.1542097 0.0931054 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE Nparm 1 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 8.9859716 1 1.5233215 1 0.3048564 F Ratio 7.7866 1.3200 0.2642 Prob>F 0.0117 0.2648 0.6132 001554 Appendix J Page 5 Random Sample Engineer/Lab In P F H S p p m S u m m a r y of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.419553 0.361509 1.054308 -2.54721 23 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance OF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 16.069059 8.03453 20 22.231326 1.11157 22 38.300386 F Ratio 7.2281 Prob>F 0.0043 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.8943 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 12 18.182976 1.51525 8 4.048350 0.50604 20 22.231326 F Ratio 2.9943 Prob>F 0.0638 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM Estimate -3.358798 -0.718579 0.0318879 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.334507 -10.04 0.257103 -2.79 0.017033 1.87 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.0112 0.0759 Lower 9 5 % -4.056563 -1.254884 -0.003642 Upper 9 5 % -2.661034 -0.182275 0.0674175 Source GENDER YRSCHEM Nparm 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 8.6829819 1 3.8959557 F Ratio 7.8115 3.5049 Prob>F 0.0112 0.0759 001555 Appendix J Page 6 Random Sample Engineer/Lab In P O A A p p m Sum ma r y of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.328411 0.222371 0.953194 -1.56794 23 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 3 8.441730 2.81391 19 17.263008 0.90858 22 25.704738 F Ratio 3.0970 Prob>F 0.0514 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.9453 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 18 15.855759 0.88088 1 1.407248 1.40725 19 17.263008 F Ratio 0.6260 Prob>F 0.7776 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE Estimate -1.020183 -0.663796 0.0323327 -0.03271 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 1.576253 -0.65 0.235879 0.042207 -2.81 0 .1 1 0.052319 -0.63 Prob>|t| 0.5252 0.0111 0.4531 0.5393 Lower 9 5 % -4.319296 -1.157492 -0.056007 -0.142213 Upper 9 5 % 2.2789291 -0.170099 0.1206719 0.0767938 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE Nparm 1 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 7.1953870 1 0.5331884 I 0.3551409 F Ratio 7.9194 0.5868 0.3909 Prob>F 0.0111 0.4531 0.5393 001556 Appendix J Page 7 Random Sample Engineer/Lab In P O A A p p m S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.314595 0.246055 0.938567 -1.56794 23 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 8.086590 4.04329 20 17.618149 0.88091 22 25.704738 F Ratio 4.5899 Prob>F 0.0229 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.8984 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 12 15.005915 1.25049 8 2.612233 0.32653 20 17.618149 F Ratio 3.8297 Prob>F 0.0326 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM Estimate -1.987348 -0.638727 0.007764 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.297785 -6.67 0.228879 -2.79 0.015163 0.51 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.0113 0.6142 Lower 9 5 % -2.608513 -1.116156 -0.023865 Upper 9 5 % -1.366184 -0.161298 0.0393931 Source GENDER YRSCHEM Nparm 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 6.8604184 1 0.2309580 F Ratio 7.7879 0.2622 Prob>F 0.0113 0.6142 001557 Appendix j Page 8 Random Sample Engineer/Lab In P F O S A A p p m S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.269018 0.1536 l.302561 -5.2038 23 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 3 11.863793 3.95460 19 32.236613 1.69666 22 44.100406 F R atio 2.3308 P rob > F 0.1067 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error M ax R Sq 0.9997 L a c k o f Fit DF Sum of Squares M ean Square F R atio 18 32.222887 1.79016 130.4211 1 0.013726 0.01373 P rob > F 19 32.236613 0.0688 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE E stim ate -2.142278 -0.770545 0.0668187 -0.107688 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 2.153984 -0.99 0.322333 -2.39 0.057677 1.16 0.071495 -1.51 P ro b > |t| 0.3324 0.0273 0.2610 0.1484 L ow er 95% -6.650586 -1.445192 -0.053899 -0.257327 U pper 95% 2.3660301 -0.095899 0.1875362 0.0419505 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE N parm 1 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 9.6957614 1 2.2771575 1 3.8493437 F R atio 5.7146 1.3421 2.2688 P rob > F 0.0273 0.2610 0.1484 001558 Appendix J Page 9 Random Sample Engineer/Lab In P F O S A A p p m S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.181732 0.099905 1.343242 -5.2038 23 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 2 8.014449 4.00722 20 36.085957 1.80430 22 44.100406 F R atio 2.2209 P rob > F 0.1346 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error M ax R Sq 0.5230 L a ck o f F it DF Sum of Squares Mean Square 12 15.048236 1.25402 8 21.037721 2.62972 20 36.085957 F R atio 0.4769 P rob > F 0.8805 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM E stim ate -5.326428 -0.688015 -0.014068 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.426179 -12.50 0.327563 -2.10 0.021701 -0.65 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0486 0.5242 Low er 95% -6.215415 -1.371293 -0.059334 U pper 95% -4.437441 -0.004736 0.0311988 Source GENDER YRSCHEM N parm 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 7.9600380 1 0.7582318 F R atio 4.4117 0.4202 P rob > F 0.0486 0.5242 00559 Appendix J Page 10 Random Sample Engineer/Lab In M570 ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.04274 -0.10841 0.942783 -3.01612 23 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 3 0.754025 0.251342 19 16.887940 0.888839 22 17.641966 F R atio 0.2828 P rob > F 0.8372 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error M ax R Sq 0.9946 L a c k o f Fit OF Sum of Squares M ean Square 18 16.791797 0.932878 1 0.096143 0.096143 19 16.887940 F R atio 9.7030 P rob > F 0.2481 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE E stim ate -2.114124 -0.170074 0.0257524 -0.033236 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 1.559036 -1.36 0.233302 -0.73 0.041746 0.62 0.051747 -0.64 P ro b > |t| 0.1910 0.4749 0.5446 0.5284 Low er 95% -5.3772 -0.658377 -0.061622 -0.141543 U pper 95% 1.1489527 0.3182297 0.1131268 0.0750714 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE N parm 1 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 0.47234628 1 0.33824664 1 0.36666114 F R atio 0.5314 0.3805 0.4125 P rob > F 0.4749 0.5446 0.5284 001560 Appendix J Page 11 Random Sample Engineer/Lab In M570ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mea n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.02 L957 -0.07585 0.928833 -3.01612 23 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 0.387364 0.193682 20 17.254602 0.862730 22 17.641966 F Ratio 0.2245 Prob>F 0.8009 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.4859 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 12 8.184523 0.68204 8 9.070079 1.13376 20 17.254602 F Ratio 0.6016 Prob>F 0.7939 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM Estimate -3.09685 -0.144602 0.0007884 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.294697 -10.51 0.226505 -0.64 0.015006 0.05 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.5305 0.9586 Lower 9 5 % -3.711572 -0.61708 -0.030513 Upper 9 5 % -2.482128 0.3278751 0.0320895 Source GENDER YRSCHEM Nparm 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 0.35161749 1 0.00238175 F Ratio 0.4076 0.0028 Prob>F 0.5305 0.9586 001561 Appendix J Page 12 Random Sample Engineer/Lab In PFOSA ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.01154 -0.14453 1.95302 -5.39325 23 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 3 0.846121 0.28204 19 72.471423 3.81429 22 73.317544 F Ratio 0.0739 Prob>F 0.9732 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.9950 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square F Ratio 18 72.104070 4.00578 10.9044 1 0.367353 0.36735 Prob>F 19 72.471423 0.2345 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE Estimate -5.985167 0.1760337 -0.001762 0.0171392 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 3.229618 -1.85 0.483297 0.36 0.086478 -0.02 0.107197 0.16 Prob>|t| 0.0794 0.7197 0.9840 0.8747 Lower 9 5 % -12.74479 -0.835511 -0.182762 -0.207225 Upper 9 5 % 0.7744532 1.1875781 .1792383 0.2415031 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE Nparm 1 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 0.50603123 1 0.00158323 1 0.09750555 F Ratio 0.1327 0.0004 0.0256 Prob>F 0.7197 0.9840 0.8747 001562 Appendix J Page 13 Random Sample Engineer/Lab In PFOSA ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.010211 -0.08877 1.904848 -5.39325 23 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 2 0.748615 0.37431 20 72.568929 3.62845 22 73.317544 F R atio 0.1032 P rob > F 0.9025 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error M ax R Sq 0.8381 L a c k o f Fit DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 12 60.697300 5.05811 8 11.871629 1.48395 20 72.568929 F R atio 3.4085 P rob > F 0.0452 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM E stim ate -5.478392 0.1628986 0.0111116 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.604364 -9.06 0.464516 0.35 0.030774 0.36 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.7295 0.7218 Low er 95% -6.739063 -0.806057 -0.053081 U pper 95% -4.217722 1.1318545 0.0753039 Source GENDER YRSCHEM N parm 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 0.44622510 1 0.47306076 F R atio 0.1230 0.1304 P rob > F 0.7295 0.7218 001563 Appendix J Page 14 Random Sample Engineer/Lab In M556 ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mea n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.039673 -0.11196 1.218237 -4.65037 23 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance OF S u m of Squares Mean Square 3 1.164918 0.38831 19 28.197906 1.48410 22 29.362824 F Ratio 0.2616 Prob>F 0.8521 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.9991 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square F Ratio 18 28.172151 1.56512 60.7697 1 0.025755 0.02575 Prob>F 19 28.197906 0.1006 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE Estimate -5.844133 -0.126807 -0.018287 0.0342181 Parameter Estimates Std Error tRatio 2.014541 -2.90 0.301466 -0.42 0.053943 -0.34 0.066866 0.51 Prob>|t| 0.0092 0.6787 0.7383 0.6147 Lower 9 5 % -10.06059 -0.757779 -0.3119 -0.105734 Upper 9 5 % -1.627679 0.5041648 0.0946156 0.1741698 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE Nparm 1 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 0.26258648 1 0.17056194 1 0.38865284 F Ratio 0.1769 0.1149 0.2619 Prob>F 0.6787 0.7383 0.6147 001564 Appendix J Page 15 Random Sample Engineer/Lab In M556 ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Sq uare Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.026437 -0.07092 1.195545 -4.65037 23 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 0.776265 0.38813 20 28.586559 1.42933 22 29.362824 F Ratio 0.2715 Prob>F 0.7650 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.4851 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 12 13.466606 1.12222 8 15.119953 1.88999 20 28.586559 F Ratio 0.5938 Prob>F 0.7996 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM Estimate -4.832364 -0.153031 0.0074147 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.379318 -12.74 0.291545 -0.52 0.019315 0.38 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.6054 0.7051 Lower 9 5 % -5.623603 -0.76118 -0.032874 Upper 9 5 % -4.041126 0.4551172 0.0477039 Source GENDER YRSCHEM Nparm 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 0.39380354 1 0.21064617 F Ratio 0.2755 0.1474 Prob>F 0.6054 0.7051 001565 Appendix K Page 1 Appendix K All participant current job chemical operators (n = 64): Regression of fluorochemical on gender, years worked in chemical and age; followed by regression equation of fluorochemical on gender and years worked in chemical 001566 Appendix K Page 2 All Participants Chemical Operators In PFOS ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mea n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.150439 0.107961 0.643599 0.392284 64 Source Model Error C Total Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.9661 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 3 4.400964 1.46699 60 24.853181 0.41422 63 29.254145 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 57 23.861535 0.418623 3 0.991647 0.330549 60 24.853181 F Ratio 3.5416 Prob>F 0.0198 F Ratio 1.2664 Prob>F 0.4953 Estimate 0.062633 -0.250464 0.0171146 -0.000079 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.401961 0.16 0.10427 -2.40 0.011052 1.55 0.010698 -0.01 Prob>|t| 0.8767 0.0194 0.1267 0.9941 Lower 9 5 % -0.741408 -0.459035 -0.004992 -0.021478 Nparm 1 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 2.3900299 1 0.9933570 1 0.0000227 F Ratio 5.7700 2.3981 0.0001 Prob>F 0.0194 0.1267 0.9941 Upper 9 5 % 0.8666743 -0.041893 0.0392214 0.0213193 001567 Appendix K Page 3 All Participants Chemical Operators In P F OS dfppm Sum ma r y of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.150438 0.122584 0.638302 0.392284 64 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 4.400941 2.20047 61 24.853204 0.40743 63 29.254145 F Ratio 5.4009 Prob>F 0.0069 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.6918 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 31 15.838180 0.510909 30 9.015024 0.300501 61 24.853204 F Ratio 1.7002 Prob>F 0.0748 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM Estimate 0.0598248 -0.250543 0.017067 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.132618 0.45 0.10288 -2.44 0.008912 1.92 Prob>|t| 0.6535 0.0178 0.0602 Lower 9 5 % -0.205362 -0.456265 -0.000753 Upper 9 5 % 0.325012 -0.04482 0.0348868 Source GENDER YRSCHEM Nparm 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 2.4162931 1 1.4943613 F Ratio 5.9306 3.6678 Prob>F 0.0178 0.0602 001568 Appendix K Page 4 All Participants Chemical Operators In PFHS ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.415491 0.386266 0.644165 -1.23054 64 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 3 17.697687 5.89923 60 24.896914 0.41495 63 42.594602 F Ratio 14.2168 Prob>F <.0001 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.9842 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 57 24.223557 0.424975 3 0.673357 0.224452 60 24.896914 F Ratio 1.8934 Prob>F 0.3353 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE Estimate -1.721892 -0.370838 0.0480263 -0.005737 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.402314 -4.28 0.104362 -3.55 0.011061 4.34 0.010707 -0.54 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.0007 <.0001 0.5940 Lower 9 5 % -2.52664 -0.579593 0.0259001 -0.027155 Upper 9 5 % -0.917144 -0.162083 0.0701525 0.01568 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE Nparm 1 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 5.2393846 1 7.8221792 l 0.1191450 F Ratio 12.6266 18.8510 0.2871 Prob>F 0.0007 <.0001 0.5940 001569 Appendix K Page 5 All Participants Chemical Operators In P F H S p p m Sum ma r y of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.412694 0.393438 0.64039 -1.23054 64 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 17.578542 8.78927 61 25.016059 0.41010 63 42.594602 F Ratio 21.4321 Prob>F <.0001 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.8068 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 31 16.785999 0.541484 30 8.230060 0.274335 61 25.016059 F Ratio 1.9738 Prob>F 0.0329 Term Intercept GENDER(F-M] YRSCHEM Estimate -1.925193 -0.3765 0.0445754 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.133052 -14.47 0.103217 -3.65 0.008941 4.99 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.0005 <0001 Lower 9 5 % -2.191247 -0.582895 0.0266973 Upper 9 5 % -1.659138 -0.170105 .0624535 Source GENDER YRSCHEM Nparm 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 5.456536 1 10.193737 F Ratio 13.3054 24.8568 Prob>F 0.0005 <0001 001570 Appendix K Page 6 Ail Participants Chemical Operators In POAA ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.21249 0.173115 0.567525 0.614523 64 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 3 5.214396 1.73813 60 19.325057 0.32208 63 24.539453 F Ratio 5.3965 Prob>F 0.0024 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.9807 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 57 18.851100 0.330721 3 0.473957 0.157986 60 19.325057 F Ratio 2.0934 Prob>F 0.3009 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE Estimate 0.4370637 -0.313225 0.0150521 -0.004228 Parameter Estimates Std Error tRatio 0.354448 1.23 0.091945 -3.41 0.009745 1.54 0.009433 -0.45 Prob>|t| 0.2224 0.0012 0.1277 0.6556 Lower 9 5 % -0.271939 -0.497143 -0.004442 -0.023097 Upper 9 5 % 1.1460661 -0.129307 0.0345458 0.0146413 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE Nparm 1 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 3.7378707 1 0.7683549 1 0.0647015 F Ratio 11.6053 2.3856 0.2009 Prob>F 0.0012 0.1277 0.6556 001571 Appendix K Page 7 All Participants Chemical Operators In POAA ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mea n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.209854 0.183947 0.563795 0.614523 64 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 5.149695 2.57485 61 19.389758 0.31786 63 24.539453 F Ratio 8.1004 Prob>F 0.0008 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.8150 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 31 14.849379 0.479012 30 4.540380 0.151346 61 19.389758 F Ratio 3.1650 Prob>F 0.0011 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM Estimate 0.2872479 -0.317397 0.0125091 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.117138 2.45 0.090872 -3.49 0.007871 1.59 Prob>|t| 0.0171 0.0009 0.1172 Lower 9 5 % 0.0530152 -0.499106 -0.003231 Upper 9 5 % 0.5214806 -0.135688 0.0282488 Source GENDER YRSCHEM Nparm 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 3.8778718 1 0.8027714 F Ratio 12.1997 2.5255 Prob>F 0.0009 0.1172 001572 Appendix K Page 8 All Participants Chemical Operators In P F O S A A p p m S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.088735 0.043172 1.583933 -4.28694 64 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 3 14.65802 4.88601 60 150.53065 2.50884 63 165.18867 F Ratio 1.9475 Prob>F 0.1316 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.9025 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 57 134.42483 2.35833 3 16.10582 5.36861 60 150.53065 F Ratio 0.4393 Prob>F 0.9106 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE Estimate -5.252813 -0.52127 -0.04353 0.0265422 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.989248 -5.31 0.256614 -2.03 0.027199 -1.60 0.026328 1.01 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.0467 0.1148 0.3174 Lower 9 5 % -7.231604 -1.034575 -0.097936 -0.026121 Upper 9 5 % -3.274023 -0.007964 0.0108755 0.0792053 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE Nparm 1 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 10.352296 1 6.426227 1 2.549914 F Ratio 4.1263 2.5614 1.0164 Prob>F 0.0467 0.1148 0.3174 001573 Appendix K Page 9 All Participants Chemical Operators In P F O S A A p p m S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.073299 0.042915 1.584146 -4.28694 64 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 12.10810 6.05405 61 153.08056 2.50952 63 165.18867 F Ratio 2.4124 Prob>F 0.0981 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.5858 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 31 84.66080 2.73099 30 68.41976 2.28066 61 153.08056 F Ratio 1.1975 Prob>F 0.3117 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM Estimate -4.312304 -0.495076 -0.027566 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.329134 -13.10 0.25533 -1.94 0.022117 -1.25 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.0571 0:2174 Lower 9 5 % -4.970449 -1.00564 -0.071792 Upper 9 5 % -3.654159 0.0154881 0.0166594 Source GENDER YRSCHEM Nparm 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 9.4347501 1 3.8984466 F Ratio 3.7596 1.5535 Prob>F 0.0571 0.2174 001574 Appendix K Page 10 All Participants Chemical Operators ln M570 ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.164237 0.122449 1.12124 -1.94564 64 Source Model Error C T otal A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 3 14.823015 4.94100 60 75.430695 1.25718 63 90.253710 F R atio 3.9302 P rob > F 0.0126 Source L a c k of Fit Pure Error Total Error M ax R Sq 0.9962 L a ck o f F it DF Sum of Squares M ean Square F R atio 57 75.084356 1.31727 11.4102 3 0.346339 0.11545 P rob > F 60 75.430695 0.0335 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE E stim ate -1.222446 -0.330479 -0.038776 -0.012926 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.700272 -1.75 0.181653 -1.82 0.019254 -2.01 0.018637 -0.69 P ro b > |t| 0.0860 0.0739 0.0485 0.4906 Low er 95% -2.623199 -0.693839 -0.077289 -0.050205 U pper 95% 0.1783065 0.0328812 -0.000263 0.0243533 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE N parm 1 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 4.1610173 1 5.0990709 1 0.6047597 F R atio 3.3098 4.0560 0.4810 P rob > F 0.0739 0.0485 0.4906 001575 Appendix K Page 11 All Participants Chemical Operators ln M 57Q p p m S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.157537 0.129915 1.11646 -1.94564 64 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 2 14.218255 7.10913 61 76.035455 1.24648 63 90.253710 F R atio 5.7033 P rob > F 0.0054 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error M ax R Sq 0.5860 L a c k o f F it DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 31 38.667300 1.24733 30 37.368155 1.24561 61 76.035455 F R atio 1.0014 P rob > F 0.4993 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM E stim ate -1.680474 -0.343235 -0.04655 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.231964 -7.24 0.179949 -1.91 0.015587 -2.99 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0612 0.0041 Low er 95% -2.144315 -0.703066 -0.077719 U pper 95% -1.216632 0.0165953 -0.015382 Source GENDER YRSCHEM N parm 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 4.534934 1 11.117067 F R atio 3.6382 8.9187 P rob > F 0.0612 0.0041 001576 Appendix K Page 12 All Participants Chemical Operators In P F O S A p p m Sum ma r y of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.036452 -0.01173 1.87564 -3.8617 64 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 3 7.98536 2.66179 60 211.08153 3.51803 63 219.06689 F Ratio 0.7566 Prob>F 0.5229 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.9823 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 57 207.20231 3.63513 3 3.87923 1.29308 60 211.08153 F Ratio 2.8112 Prob>F 0.2148 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE Estimate -3.083552 -0.119692 -0.028921 -0.01353 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 1.171434 -2.63 0.303874 -0.39 0.032208 -0.90 0.031176 -0.43 Prob>|t| 0.0108 0.6951 0.3728 0.6659 Lower 9 5 % -5.426769 -0.727531 -0.093347 -0.075892 Upper 9 5 % -0.740335 0.4881469 0.0355046 0.0488322 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE Nparm 1 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 0.5458097 1 2.8366160 1 0.6625603 F Ratio 0.1551 0.8063 0.1883 Prob>F 0.6951 0.3728 0.6659 001577 Appendix K Page 13 All Participants Chemical Operators In P F O S A p p m S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.036452 -0.01173 1.87564 -3.8617 64 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 3 7.98536 2.66179 60 211.08153 3.51803 63 219.06689 F R atio 0.7566 P rob > F 0.5229 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error M ax R Sq 0.9823 L a ck o f F it DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 57 207.20231 3.63513 3 3.87923 1.29308 60 211.08153 F R atio 2.8112 P rob > F 0.2148 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE E stim ate -3.083552 -0.119692 -0.028921 -0.01353 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 1.171434 -2.63 0.303874 -0.39 0.032208 -0.90 0.031176 -0.43 P ro b > |t| 0.0108 0.6951 0.3728 0.6659 Low er 95% -5.426769 -0.727531 -0.093347 -0.075892 U pper 95% -0.740335 0.4881469 0.0355046 0.0488322 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE N parm 1 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 0.5458097 1 2.8366160 1 0.6625603 F R atio 0.1551 0.8063 0.1883 P rob > F 0.6951 0.3728 0.6659 001578 Appendix K Page 14 All Participants Chemical Operators In PFOSA ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.033427 0.001736 1.86312 -3.8617 64 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 7.32280 3.66140 61 211.74409 3.47121 63 219.06689 F Ratio 1.0548 Prob>F 0.3545 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.5240 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 31 107.46461 3.46660 30 104.27948 3.47598 61 211.74409 F Ratio 0.9973 Prob>F 0.5037 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM Estimate -3.562968 -0.133044 -0.037059 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.387096 -9.20 0.300294 -0.44 0.026012 -1.42 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.6593 0.1593 Lower 9 5 % -4.337015 -0.73352 -0.089073 Upper 9 5 % -2.788922 0.4674322 0.0149549 Source GENDER YRSCHEM Nparm 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 0.6813608 1 7.0457385 F Ratio 0.1963 2.0298 Prob>F 0.6593 0.1593 001579 Appendix K Page 15 All Participants Chemical Operators In M556 ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.135522 0.092298 1.04555 -3.10248 64 Source Model Error C T otal A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 3 10.282420 3.42747 60 65.590476 1.09317 63 75.872896 F R atio 3.1353 P rob > F 0.0319 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error M ax R Sq 0.9974 L a c k o f F it DF Sum of Squares M ean Square F R atio 57 65.396881 1.14731 17.7790 3 0.193596 0.06453 P rob > F 60 65.590476 0.0177 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE E stim ate -2.765873 -0.36628 -0.03039 -0.006153 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.653 -4.24 0.16939 -2.16 0.017954 -1.69 0.017379 -0.35 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0346 0.0957 0.7245 Low er 95% -4.072068 -0.705111 -0.066304 -0.040916 U pper 95% -1.459679 -0.027448 0.005523 0.0286099 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE N parm 1 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 5.1113761 1 3.1321284 1 0.1370284 F R atio 4.6757 2.8652 0.1253 P rob > F 0.0346 0.0957 0.7245 001580 Appendix K Page 16 All Participants Chemical Operators In M 5 5 6 p p m Sum ma r y of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mea n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.133716 0.105313 1.038027 -3.10248 64 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 10.145391 5.07270 61 65.727505 1.07750 63 75.872896 F Ratio 4.7078 Prob>F 0.0126 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.6199 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 31 36.884521 1.18982 30 28.842984 0.96143 61 65.727505 F Ratio 1.2376 Prob>F 0.2807 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM Estimate -2.983898 -0.372352 -0.034091 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.215668 -13.84 0.167307 -2.23 0.014492 -2.35 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.0298 0.0219 Lower 9 5 % -3.415154 -0.706904 -0.06307 Upper 9 5 % -2.552642 -0.0378 -0.005112 Source GENDER YRSCHEM Nparm 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 5.3369633 1 5.9624437 F Ratio 4.9531 5.5336 Prob>F 0.0298 0.0219 001581 Appendix L Page 1 Appendix L All participant current job engineer/lab group (n = 37): Regression equation of fluorochemical on gender, years worked in chemical and age; followed by regression equation of fluorochemical on gender and years worked in chemical 001582 Appendix L Page 2 All Participants Engineer/Lab In PFOS ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.386611 0.330848 0.825205 -0.94033 37 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 3 14.163658 4.72122 33 22.471780 0.68096 36 36.635438 F Ratio 6.9332 Prob>F 0.0010 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.9878 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 32 22.025162 0.688286 1 0.446618 0.446618 33 22.471780 F Ratio 1.5411 Prob>F 0.5735 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE Estimate -2.071342 -0.434286 0.0189436 0.0146474 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.85018 -2.44 0.165902 -2.62 0.021692 0.87 0.026443 0.55 Prob>|t| 0.0204 0.0133 0.3888 0.5834 Lower 9 5 % -3.801035 -0.771815 -0.025188 -0.039152 Upper 9 5 % -0.341649 -0.096757 0.0630753 0.0684465 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE Nparm 1 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 4.6662679 1 0.5193576 1 0.2089349 F Ratio 6.8525 0.7627 0.3068 Prob>F 0.0133 0.3888 0.5834 001583 Appendix L Page 3 All Participants Engineer/Lab In P F O S p p m S u m m a r y of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mea n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.380908 0.344491 0.81675 -0.94033 37 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 13.954723 6.97736 34 22.680715 0.66708 36 36.635438 F Ratio 10.4596 Prob>F 0.0003 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.7264 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 19 12.658602 0.666242 15 10.022112 0.668141 34 22.680715 F Ratio 0.9972 Prob>F 0.5100 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM Estimate -1.615211 -0.439047 0.0293537 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.20928 -7.72 0.163982 -2.68 0.010721 2.74 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.0113 0.0098 Lower 9 5 % -2.040516 -0.772296 0.0075663 Upper 9 5 % -1.189906 -0.105797 0.051141 Source GENDER YRSCHEM Nparm 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 4.7819718 1 5.0008180 F Ratio 7.1685 7.4966 Prob>F 0.0113 0.0098 001584 Appendix L Page 4 All Participants Engineer/Lab In PFHS ppm Summary o f Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.445073 0.394625 0.963293 -2.5975 37 Source Model Error C T otal A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 3 24.559883 8.18663 33 30.621774 0.92793 36 55.181656 F R atio 8.8224 P rob > F 0.0002 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error M ax R Sq 0.9895 L a c k o f F it DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 32 30.043718 0.938866 1 0.578056 0.578056 33 30.621774 F R atio 1.6242 P rob > F 0.5616 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE E stim ate -4.078592 -0.566055 0.0256075 0.0189228 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.992447 -4.11 0.193664 -2.92 0.025321 1.01 0.030868 0.61 P ro b > |t| 0.0002 0.0062 0.3192 0.5441 Low er 95% -6.097727 -0.960065 -0.025909 -0.043879 U pper 95% -2.059457 -0.172045 0.077124 0.0817245 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE N parm 1 l 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 7.9274937 1 0.9490174 1 0.3487090 F R atio 8.5432 1.0227 0.3758 P rob > F 0.0062 0.3192 0.5441 001585 Appendix L Page 5 All Participants Englneer/Lab In P F H S p p m S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.438754 0.40574 0.954409 -2.5975 37 Source Model Error C T otal A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 2 24.211174 12.1056 34 30.970483 0.9109 36 55.181656 F R atio 13.2897 P rob > F <.0001 Source Lack of Fit P ure Error T otal E rror M ax R Sq 0.8537 L a c k o f F it DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 19 22.898600 1.20519 15 8.071882 0.53813 34 30.970483 F R atio 2.2396 P rob > F 0.0591 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM E stim ate -3.48932 -0.572206 0.0390561 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.244553 -14.27 0.19162 -2.99 0.012528 3.12 P ro b > |t| <0001 0.0052 0.0037 L ow er 95% -3.986308 -0.961623 0.0135966 U pper 95% -2.992332 -0.182789 0.0645156 Source GENDER YRSCHEM N parm 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 8.1225045 1 8.8530880 F R atio 8.9170 9.7191 P rob > F 0.0052 0.0037 001586 Appendix L Page 6 All Participants Engineer/Lab In POAA ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.305199 0.242035 0.910104 -1.62112 37 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 3 12.006567 4.00219 33 27.333536 0.82829 36 39.340103 F Ratio 4.8319 Prob>F 0.0068 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error Max RSq 0.9642 Lack of Fit DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 32 25.926287 0.81020 1 1.407248 1.40725 33 27.333536 F Ratio 0.5757 Prob>F 0.8031 Term Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE Estimate -2.930493 -0.527939 -0.002986 0.0256936 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.937648 -3.13 0.182971 -2.89 0.023923 -0.12 0.029164 0.88 Prob>|t| 0.0037 0.0068 0.9014 0.3847 Lower 9 5 % -4.838141 -0.900194 -0.051658 -0.03364 Upper 9 5 % -1.022846 -0.155684 0.0456859 0.0850277 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE Nparm 1 1 1 Effect Test D F S u m of Squares 1 6.8958131 1 0.0129048 1 0.6428967 F Ratio 8.3254 0.0156 0.7762 Prob>F 0.0068 0.9014 0.3847 001587 Appendix L Page 7 All Participants Engineer/Lab In P O A A p p m S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.288857 0.247025 0.907103 -1.62112 37 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 2 11.363671 5.68184 34 27.976432 0.82284 36 39.340103 F R atio 6.9052 P rob > F 0.0030 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error M ax R Sq 0.7269 L a c k o f F it DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 19 17.231908 0.906943 15 10.744524 0.716302 34 27.976432 F R atio 1.2661 P rob > F 0.3249 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM E stim ate -2.130374 -0.53629 0.0152746 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.232431 -9.17 0.182123 -2.94 0.011907 1.28 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0058 0.2082 Low er 95% -2.602729 -0.906406 -0.008923 U pper 95% -1.65802 -0.166175 .0394721 Source GENDER YRSCHEM N parm 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 7.1348529 1 1.3541118 F R atio 8.6710 1.6457 P rob > F 0.0058 0.2082 001588 Appendix L Page 8 All Participants Engineer/Lab In PFOSAA ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.181276 0.106847 1.272756 -5.65628 37 Source Model Error C T otal A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 3 1 1 .8 3 6 0 5 6 3 .9 4 5 3 5 33 5 3 .4 5 6 9 6 2 1 .6 1 9 9 1 3 6 6 5 .2 9 3 0 1 7 F R atio 2 .4 3 5 5 P rob > F 0 .0 8 2 2 Source L a ck o f F it Pure Error T o t a l Error M ax R Sq 0 .9 9 9 8 L a ck o f F it DF Sum of Squares M ean Square F R atio 32 5 3 .4 4 3 2 3 5 1 .6 7 0 1 0 1 2 1 .6 7 4 2 1 0 .0 1 3 7 2 6 0 .0 1 3 7 3 P rob > F 33 5 3 .4 5 6 9 6 2 0 .0 7 1 7 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE E stim ate -3 .6 7 7 9 3 3 -0 .5 7 1 8 4 9 0 .0 2 7 0 1 6 5 -0 .0 6 3 6 5 7 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 1 .3 1 1 2 7 6 -2 .8 0 0 .2 5 5 8 8 -2 .2 3 0 .0 3 3 4 5 6 0 .8 1 0 .0 4 0 7 8 5 -1 .5 6 P ro b > |t| 0 .0 0 8 4 0 .0 3 2 3 0 .4 2 5 1 0 .1 2 8 1 Low er 95% -6 .3 4 5 7 2 7 -1 .0 9 2 4 3 7 -0 .0 4 1 0 5 -0 .1 4 6 6 3 4 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE N parm 1 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 8 .0 9 0 5 9 5 0 1 1 .0 5 6 3 2 5 7 1 3 .9 4 6 2 5 8 6 F R atio 4 .9 9 4 5 0 .6 5 2 1 2 .4 3 6 1 P rob > F 0 .0 3 2 3 0 .4 2 5 1 0 .1 2 8 1 U pper 95% -1 .0 1 0 1 3 8 -0 .0 5 1 2 6 1 0 .0 9 5 0 8 3 0 .0 1 9 3 1 9 9 001589 Appendix L Page 9 Source Model Error C T otal Source L ack o f F it Pure Error T otal E rror M ax R Sq 0 .6 0 9 7 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM Source GENDER YRSCHEM All Participants Engineer/Lab In P F O S A A p p m S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mea n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares 2 7 .8 8 9 7 9 7 34 5 7 .4 0 3 2 2 0 36 6 5 .2 9 3 0 1 7 L a c k o f F it DF Sum of Squares 19 3 1 .9 2 2 1 2 4 15 2 5 .4 8 1 0 9 6 34 5 7 .4 0 3 2 2 0 0 .1 2 0 8 3 7 0 .0 6 9 1 2 1 1 .2 9 9 3 5 8 -5 .6 5 6 2 8 37 M ean Square 3 .9 4 4 9 0 1 .6 8 8 3 3 M ean Square 1 .6 8 0 1 1 1 .6 9 8 7 4 F R atio 2 .3 3 6 6 Prob>F 0 .1 1 2 0 F R atio 0 .9 8 9 0 P rob > F 0 .5 1 6 6 E stim ate -5 .6 6 0 2 6 6 -0 .5 5 1 1 5 8 -0 .0 1 8 2 2 5 P aram eter E stim a tes S td Error t R atio 0 .3 3 2 9 4 1 -1 7 .0 0 0 .2 6 0 8 7 7 -2 .1 1 0 .0 1 7 0 5 6 -1 .0 7 P ro b > |t| < .0 0 0 1 0 .0 4 2 0 0 .2 9 2 8 Low er 95% -6 .3 3 6 8 7 9 -1 .0 8 1 3 2 1 - .0 5 2 8 8 6 N parm 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 7 .5 3 5 9 4 4 6 1 1 .9 2 7 8 0 4 0 F R atio 4 .4 6 3 5 1 .1 4 1 8 P rob > F 0 .0 4 2 0 0 .2 9 2 8 U pper 95% -4 .9 8 3 6 5 4 -0 .0 2 0 9 9 5 0 .0 1 6 4 3 6 001590 Appendix L Page 10 All Participants Engineer/Lab In M 5 7 0 p p m S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.023179 -0.06562 0.990095 -3.19558 37 Source Model Error C T otal A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 3 0.767638 0.255879 33 32.349503 0.980288 36 33.117141 F R atio 0.2610 P rob > F 0.8529 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error M ax R Sq 0.9971 L a ck o f Fit DF Sum of Squares M ean Square F R atio 32 32.253360 1.00792 10.4835 1 0.096143 0.09614 P rob > F 33 32.349503 0.2406 T erm In te r ce p t GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE E stim ate -3.483257 -0.125208 .001537 0.0047368 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 1.02006 -3.41 0.199053 -0.63 0.026026 0.06 0.031727 0.15 P ro b > |t| 0.0017 0.5337 0.9533 0.8822 Low er 95% -5.558572 -0.530181 -0.051413 -0.059812 U pper 95% -1.407941 0.2797653 0.0544869 0.0692859 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE N parm 1 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 0.38786407 1 0.00341911 1 0.02185078 F R atio 0.3957 0.0035 0.0223 P rob > F 0.5337 0.9533 0.8822 001591 Appendix L Page 11 A ll P a r tic ip a n ts E n g in eer/L a b In M 5 7 0 p p m S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.02252 -0 .0 3 4 9 8 0 .9 7 5 7 5 5 -3 .1 9 5 5 8 37 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF S u m o f S q u a r e s M e a n S q u a r e 2 0 .7 4 5 7 8 7 0 .3 7 2 8 9 4 34 3 2 .3 7 1 3 5 4 0 .9 5 2 0 9 9 36 3 3 .1 1 7 1 4 1 F R atio 0 .3 9 1 7 Prob>F 0 .6 7 8 9 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error M ax R Sq 0 .3 2 3 3 L a c k o f F it DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 19 9 .9 5 9 9 4 1 0 .5 2 4 2 1 15 2 2 .4 1 1 4 1 3 1 .4 9 4 0 9 34 3 2 .3 7 1 3 5 4 F R atio 0 .3 5 0 9 Prob>F 0 .9 8 3 3 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM E stim ate -3 .3 3 5 7 4 8 -0 .1 2 6 7 4 7 0 .0 0 4 9 0 3 6 P aram eter E stim a tes S td Error t R atio 0 .2 5 0 0 2 3 -1 3 .3 4 0 .1 9 5 9 0 6 -0 .6 5 0 .0 1 2 8 0 8 0 .3 8 P ro b > |t| < .0 0 0 1 0 .5 2 2 0 0 .7 0 4 2 Low er 95% -3 .8 4 3 8 5 2 -0 .5 2 4 8 7 4 -0 .0 2 1 1 2 5 Source GENDER YRSCHEM N parm 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 0 .3 9 8 5 3 1 1 7 1 0 .1 3 9 5 5 2 7 8 F R atio 0 .4 1 8 6 0 .1 4 6 6 P rob > F 0 .5 2 2 0 0 .7 0 4 2 U pper 95% -2 .8 2 7 6 4 4 0 .2 7 1 3 7 9 7 0 .0 3 0 9 3 2 5 001592 Appendix L Page 12 All Participants Engineer/Lab In P F O S A p p m S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mea n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.022151 -0.06674 1.616733 -5.7372 37 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 3 1.953947 0.65132 33 86.256256 2.61383 36 88.210203 F R atio 0.2492 P rob > F 0.8613 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error M ax R Sq 0.9958 L a c k o f F it DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 32 85.888903 2.68403 1 0.367353 0.36735 33 86.256256 F R atio 7.3064 P rob > F 0.2861 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE E stim ate -5.523456 0.2341119 0.0199578 -0.00946 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 1.665664 -3.32 0.325034 0.72 0.042498 0.47 0.051808 -0.18 P ro b > |t| 0.0022 0.4764 0.6417 0.8562 Low er 95% -8.912253 -0.427171 -0.066504 -0.114862 U pper 95% -2.134659 0.895395 0.10642 0.0959429 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE N parm 1 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 1.3560164 1 0.5764525 1 0.0871452 F R atio 0.5188 0.2205 0.0333 P rob > F 0.4764 0.6417 0.8562 001593 Appendix L Page 13 All Participants Engineer/Lab In PFOSA ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root M e a n Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.021163 -0.03642 1.593585 -5.7372 37 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 2 1.866802 0.93340 34 86.343402 2.53951 36 88.210203 F R atio 0.3676 P rob > F 0.6951 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error M ax R Sq 0.7369 L a c k o f F it DF S u m o f S q u a r e s M ea n S q u a r e 19 63.139191 3.32312 15 23.204211 1.54695 34 86.343402 F Ratio 2.1482 P rob > F 0.0689 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM E stim ate -5.818037 0.2371866 0.0132347 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.408332 -14.25 0.31995 0.74 0.020918 0.63 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.4636 0.5312 Low er 95% -6.647863 -0.413027 -0.029275 U pper 95% -4.988212 0.8873997 0.0557446 Source GENDER YRSCHEM N parm 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 1.3956145 1 1.0165846 F R atio 0.5496 0.4003 P rob > F 0.4636 0.5312 001594 Appendix L Page 14 All Participants Engineer/Lab In M556 ppm Summary of Fit RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error M e a n of Response Observations (or S u m Wgts) 0.114795 0.034322 l.165251 -4.61966 37 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 3 5 .8 1 0 7 6 6 1 .9 3 6 9 2 33 4 4 .8 0 7 7 0 3 1 .3 5 7 8 1 36 5 0 .6 1 8 4 6 8 F R atio 1 .4 2 6 5 P rob > F 0 .2 5 2 6 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error M ax R Sq 0 .9 9 9 5 L a ck o f F it DF Sum of Squares M ean Square F R atio 32 4 4 .7 8 1 9 4 8 1 .3 9 9 4 4 5 4 .3 3 6 6 1 0 .0 2 5 7 5 5 0 .0 2 5 7 5 P rob > F 33 4 4 .8 0 7 7 0 3 0 .1 0 7 1 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM AGE E stim ate -7 .0 0 3 3 7 9 -0 .1 0 3 9 2 2 -0 .0 4 5 9 4 5 0 .0 7 1 9 0 9 6 P aram eter E stim a tes S td Error t R atio 1 .2 0 0 5 1 7 -5 .8 3 0 .2 3 4 2 6 7 -0 .4 4 0 .0 3 0 6 3 -1 .5 0 0 .0 3 7 3 4 1 .9 3 P ro b > |t| < .0 0 0 1 0 .6 6 0 2 0 .1 4 3 1 0 .0 6 2 8 L ow er 95% -9 .4 4 5 8 3 4 -0 .5 8 0 5 3 8 -0 .1 0 8 2 6 2 -0 .0 0 4 0 5 9 Source GENDER YRSCHEM AGE N parm 1 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 0 .2 6 7 1 9 7 4 1 3 .0 5 5 0 1 4 1 1 5 .0 3 5 7 4 7 4 F R atio 0 .1 9 6 8 2 .2 5 0 0 3 .7 0 8 7 P rob > F 0 .6 6 0 2 0 .1 4 3 1 0 .0 6 2 8 U pper 95% -4 .5 6 0 9 2 4 0 .3 7 2 6 9 4 0 .0 1 6 3 7 2 3 0 .1 4 7 8 7 7 9 001595 Appendix L Page 15 All Participants Engineer/Lab In M556 ppm Summary of Fit R Square R Square Adj R oot M ean Square Error M ean o f R esponse O b serv a tio n s (or S u m W g ts) 0 .0 1 5 3 1 1 -0 .0 4 2 6 1 1 .2 1 0 7 7 8 -4 .6 1 9 6 6 37 Source M odel E rror C T otal A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 2 0 .7 7 5 0 1 8 0 .3 8 7 5 1 34 4 9 .8 4 3 4 5 0 1 .4 6 5 9 8 36 5 0 .6 1 8 4 6 8 F R atio 0 .2 6 4 3 P rob > F 0 .7 6 9 3 Source Lack of Fit Pure Error Total Error M ax R Sq 0 .3 7 3 2 L a ck o f F it DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 19 1 8 .1 1 3 8 5 2 0 .9 5 3 3 6 15 3 1 .7 2 9 5 9 8 2 .1 1 5 3 1 34 4 9 .8 4 3 4 5 0 F R atio 0 .4 5 0 7 P rob > F 0 .9 4 8 6 T erm Intercept GENDER[F-M] YRSCHEM E stim ate -4 .7 6 4 0 6 1 -0 .1 2 7 2 9 5 0 .0 0 5 1 6 1 9 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0 .3 1 0 2 4 4 -1 5 .3 6 0 .2 4 3 0 9 3 -0 .5 2 0 .0 1 5 8 9 3 0 .3 2 P ro b > |t| < .0 0 0 1 0 .6 0 3 9 0 .7 4 7 3 Low er 95% -5 .3 9 4 5 4 8 -0 .6 2 1 3 1 6 -0 .0 2 7 1 3 6 Source GENDER YRSCHEM N parm 1 1 E ffect T est DF Sum of Squares 1 0 .4 0 1 9 8 2 2 3 1 0 .1 5 4 6 4 7 1 1 F R atio 0 .2 7 4 2 0 .1 0 5 5 P rob > F 0 .6 0 3 9 0 .7 4 7 3 U pper 95% -4 .1 3 3 5 7 4 0 .3 6 6 7 2 5 9 0 .0 3 7 4 6 0 2 001596 Appendix M Page 1 Appendix M Scatterplots (and regressions) of fluorochemical levels of all chemical participant male chemical operators (n = 52) and engineer/lab (n = 28) with years worked in chemical 001597 All Participants Male Chemical Operators In PFOS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix M Page 2 YRSCHEM Urea Ft P^ntrndFi degree=2 Linear Fit ln P F O S d f p p m = 0.28294 + 0.01961 Y R S C H E M Summary of Fit RSquare 0.077877 RSquare Adj 0.059435 Root M e a n Square Error 0.65096 M e a n of Response 0.494658 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 52 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 1.789373 1.78937 50 21.187429 0.42375 51 22.976802 F Ratio 4.2227 Prob>F 0.0451 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.2829416 0.0196069 Parameter Estimates Std Error tRatio 0.136981 2.07 0.009541 2.05 Prob>|t| 0.0441 0.0451 Lower 9 5 % 0.0078068 0.0004424 Upper 9 5 % 0.5580763 0.0387713 001598 Appendix M Page 3 Polynomial Fit degree=2 ln PFOSdfppm = 0.07855 + 0.08713 YRSCHEM - 0.00255 YRSCHEMA2 Summary of Fit RSquare 0.152148 RSquare Adj 0.117542 Root M e a n Square Error 0.630532 M e a n of Response 0.494658 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 52 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 2 3.495868 1.74793 49 19.480934 0.39757 51 22.976802 F R atio 4.3965 P rob > F 0.0175 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM Y R S C H E M A2 E stim ate 0.0785522 0.0871341 -0.002546 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.16534 0.48 0.033879 2.57 0.001229 -2.07 P ro b > |t| 0.6368 0.0132 0.0436 Low er 95% -0.25371 0.0190526 -0.005016 U pper 95% 0.4108141 0.1552157 -0.000076 001599 All Participants Male Chemical Operators In PFHS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix M Page 4 YRSCHEM Linea Ft P^rorrl Ft desree=? L in e a r Fit ln P F H S d fp p m = -1 .5 3 8 5 + 0 .0 4 3 6 3 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0 .2 9 3 3 5 5 RSquare Adj 0 .2 7 9 2 2 2 Root M e a n Square Error 0 .6 5 3 3 2 1 M e a n of Response -1 .0 6 7 3 6 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 52 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 8 .8 5 9 6 3 0 8 .8 5 9 6 3 50 2 1 .3 4 1 3 8 5 0 .4 2 6 8 3 51 3 0 .2 0 1 0 1 5 F R atio 2 0 .7 5 6 9 P rob > F < .0 0 0 1 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate -1 .5 3 8 4 6 2 0 .0 4 3 6 2 8 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0 .1 3 7 4 7 8 -1 1 .1 9 0 .0 0 9 5 7 6 4 .5 6 P ro b > |t| < .0 0 0 1 < .0 0 0 1 Low er 95% 1.814595 0 .0 2 4 3 9 4 1 U pper 95% -1 .2 6 2 3 2 9 0 .0 6 2 8 6 1 9 001600 Appendix M Page 5 Polynomial Fit degree=2 ln PFHSdfppm = -1.7114 + 0.10078 YRSCHEM - 0.00215 YRSCHEMA2 Summary of Fit RSquare 0.33383 RSquare Adj 0.306639 Root M e a n Square Error 0.640775 M e a n of Response -1.06736 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 52 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 2 10.082003 5.04100 49 20.119012 0.41059 51 30.201015 F R atio 12.2774 P rob > F <.0001 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM Y R S C H E M A2 E stim ate -1.711447 0.1007796 -0.002155 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.168026 -10.19 0.034429 2.93 0.001249 -1.73 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0052 0.0908 Low er 95% -2.049106 0.0315921 -0.004665 U pper 95% -1.373787 0.1699671 0.0003549 001601 All Participants Male Chemical Operators In POAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix M Page 6 YRSCHEM -- Lineo Ft Po^nomiol ft degree^? L in ea r F it ln P O A A p p m = 0.55713 + 0.01691 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.09096 RSquare Adj 0.072779 Root M e a n Square Error 0.51575 8 M e a n of Response 0.739719 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 52 Source Model E rror C T otal A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 1.330847 1.33085 50 13.300322 0.26601 51 14.631169 F R atio 5.0031 P rob > F 0.0298 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.5571329 0.0169091 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.108531 5.13 0.00756 2.24 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0298 Low er 95% 0.3391425 0.0017251 U pper 95% 0.7751233 0.0320932 001602 Appendix M Page 7 Polynomial Fit degree=2 ln POAAppm = 0.30559 + 0.10002 YRSCHEM - 0.00313 YRSCHEMA2 Summary of Fit RSquare 0.26762 RSquare Adj 0.237727 Root M e a n Square Error 0.467638 M e a n of Response 0.739719 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 52 Source M odel Error C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 2 3.915590 1.95779 49 10.715579 0.21869 51 14.631169 F R atio 8.9526 P rob > F 0.0005 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM Y R S C H E M A2 E stim ate 0.3055886 0.1000157 -0.003133 P ara m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.122625 2.49 0.025126 3.98 0.000911 -3.44 P ro b > |t| 0.0161 0.0002 0.0012 Low er 95% 0.0591644 0.0495226 -0.004965 U pper 95% 0.5520129 0.1505088 -0.001302 001603 All Participants Male Chemical Operators In PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix M Page 8 YRSCHEM -- Linear Fl Source M odel Error C T otal T erm Intercept YRSCHEM L in ea r Fit ln P F O S A A d f p p m = -3.8496 - 0.02457 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.021349 RSquare Adj 0.001776 Root M e a n Square Error 1.604937 M e a n of Response -4.11489 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 52 A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 2 .8 0 9 5 8 2 .8 0 9 5 8 50 1 2 8 .7 9 1 2 0 2 .5 7 5 8 2 51 1 3 1 .6 0 0 7 8 F R atio 1 .0 9 0 8 P rob > F 0 .3 0 1 3 E stim ate -3 .8 4 9 5 9 6 -0 .0 2 4 5 6 8 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0 .3 3 7 7 2 7 -1 1 .4 0 0 .0 2 3 5 2 4 -1 .0 4 P ro b > |t| < .0 0 0 1 0 .3 0 1 3 Low er 95% -4 .5 2 7 9 3 9 -0 .0 7 1 8 1 8 U pper 95% -3 .1 7 1 2 5 3 0 .0 2 2 6 8 1 2 001604 All Participants Male Chemical Operators In M570ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix M Page 9 YRSCHEM = Lira ft L in e a r Fit ln 5 70ppm = -1.3268 - 0.04752 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.129273 RSquare Adj 0.111859 Root M e a n Square Error 1.189837 M e a n of Response -1.83989 Observations (or S u m W gts) 52 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 10.509261 10.5093 50 70.785564 1.4157 51 81.294825 F R atio 7.4233 P rob > F 0.0088 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate -1.326808 -0.047516 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.250377 -5.30 0.01744 -2.72 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0088 Low er 95% -1.829705 -0.082545 U pper 95% -0.823911 -0.012487 001605 All Participants Male Chemical Operators In PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix M Page 10 HEM = Linea f l Source M odel E rror C T otal T erm In te r ce p t YRSCH EM L in e a r Fit ln PFOSAdf=ppm = -3.3047 - 0.04865 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.0581 RSquare Adj 0.039262 Root M e a n Square Error 1.890083 M e a n of Response -3.83009 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 52 A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 1 1 .0 1 8 0 8 1 1.01 8 1 5 0 1 7 8 .6 2 0 6 2 3 .5 7 2 4 51 1 8 9 .6 3 8 7 0 F R atio 3 .0 8 4 2 P rob > F 0 .0 8 5 2 E stim ate -3 .3 0 4 7 2 9 -0 .0 4 8 6 5 3 P aram eter E stim ates Std Error t R atio 0 .3 9 7 7 3 -8.3 1 0 .0 2 7 7 0 4 -1 .7 6 P ro b > |t| < .0 0 0 1 0 .0 8 5 2 Low er 95% -4 .1 0 3 5 9 1 -0 .1 0 4 2 9 8 U pper 95% -2 .5 0 5 8 6 6 0 .0 0 6 9 9 1 4 001606 All Participants Male Chemical Operators In M556 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix M Page 11 YRSCHEM = Unm ft L in ea r Fit In M 55 6d fp p m = -2.6395 - 0.0315 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.075514 RSquare Adj 0.057024 Root M e a n Square Error 1.063505 M e a n of Response -2.97966 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 52 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 4.619303 4.61930 50 56.552145 1.13104 51 61.171448 F R atio 4.0841 P rob > F 0.0487 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate -2.639497 -0.031503 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.223793 -11.79 0.015588 -2.02 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0487 Low er 95% -3.088999 -0.062812 U pper 95% -2.189996 -0.000193 001607 All Participants Male Engineer/Lab In PFOS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix M Page 12 'fflSCHEM Linear Fi Pctmcmid Fl ifcgrre-2 L in e a r Fit ln P F O S d f p p m = -1.2515 + 0.03365 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.208121 RSquareAdj 0.177664 Root M e a n Square Error 0.886126 M e a n of Response -0.66143 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 28 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 5.365639 5.36564 26 20.415689 0.78522 27 25.781328 F R atio 6.8333 P rob > F 0.0147 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate -1.251482 0.0336488 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.28106 -4.45 0.012872 2.61 P ro b > |t| 0.0001 0.0147 Low er 95% -1.829204 0.0071897 U pper 95% -0.673759 0.0601078 001608 Appendix M Page 13 Polynomial Fit degree=2 ln PFOSdfppm = -1.6361 + 0.13222 YRSCHEM - 0.00282 YRSCHEMA2 Summary of Fit RSquare 0.307474 RSquare Adj 0.252072 Root M e a n Square Error 0.845086 M e a n of Response -0.66143 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 28 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 2 7.927078 3.96354 25 17.854250 0.71417 27 25.781328 F R atio 5.5499 P rob > F 0.0101 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM Y R S C H E M A2 E stim ate -1.636113 0.1322248 -0.002819 P aram eter E stim ates Std Error t R atio 0.336297 -4.87 0.053479 2.47 0.001489 -1.89 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0206 0.0699 Low er 95% -2.328723 0.0220833 -0.005885 U pper 95% -0.943503 0.2423664 0.0002466 001609 All Participants Male Engineer/Lab In PFHS ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix M Page 14 YRSCHEM Lreor Ft Pyram id Fi hmm-l L in ea r Fit ln PFHSdfjppm = -2.9522 + 0.04106 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.243114 RSquare Adj 0.214003 Root M e a n Square Error 0.978058 M e a n of Response -2.23224 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 28 Source M odel E rror C T otal A n alysis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 7 .9 8 8 7 9 1 7 .9 8 8 7 9 26 2 4 .8 7 1 5 1 6 0 .9 5 6 6 0 27 3 2 .8 6 0 3 0 7 F R atio 8 .3 5 1 3 P rob > F 0 .0 0 7 7 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate -2 .9 5 2 2 2 0 .0 4 1 0 5 8 1 P aram eter E stim ates Std Error t R atio 0 .3 1 0 2 1 9 -9 .5 2 0 .0 1 4 2 0 8 2 .8 9 P ro b > |t| < .0 0 0 1 0 .0 0 7 7 Low er 95% -3 .5 8 9 8 7 9 0 .0 1 1 8 5 4 1 U pper 95% -2 .3 1 4 5 6 1 0 .0 7 0 2 6 2 1 001610 Appendix M Page 15 Polynomial Fit degree=2 ln PFHSdfppm = -3.5713 + 0.19973 YRSCHEM - 0.00454 YRSCHEMA2 Summary of Fit RSquare 0.445082 RSquare Adj 0.400688 Root M e a n Square Error 0.854044 M e a n of Response -2.23224 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 28 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 2 14.625528 7.31276 25 18.234779 0.72939 27 32.860307 F R atio 10.0258 P rob > F 0.0006 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM Y R S C H E M A2 E stim ate -3.571347 0.1997324 -0.004538 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.339861 -10.51 0.054046 3.70 0.001504 -3.02 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.0011 0.0058 Low er 95% -4.2713 0.0884234 -0.007636 U pper 95% -2.871395 0.3110415 -0.00144 001611 All Participants Male Engineer/Lab In POAAppm By YRSCHEM Appendix M Page 16 YRSCHEM Linear Ft PCromol Ft de(jree=2 L in e a r Fit ln P O A A p p m = -1.6429 + 0.01806 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.063628 RSquare Adj 0.027613 Root M e a n Square Error 0.935202 M e a n of Response -1.32623 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 28 Source Model E rror C T otal A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 1.545191 1.54519 26 22.739675 0.87460 27 24.284865 F R atio 1.7667 P rob > F 0.1953 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate -1.642879 0.0180572 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.296626 -5.54 0.013585 1.33 P ro b > |t| <.0001 0.1953 Low er 95% -2.252597 -0.009867 U pper 95% -1.03316 0.0459816 001612 Appendix M Page 17 Polynomial Fit degree=2 ln POAAppm = -2.1643 + 0.15169 YRSCHEM - 0.00382 YRSCHEMA2 Summary of Fit RSquare 0.257455 RSquare Adj 0.198052 Root Mean Square Error 0.849296 M e a n of Response -1.32623 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 28 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 6.252264 3.12613 25 18.032601 0.72130 27 24.284865 F Ratio 4.3340 Prob>F 0.0242 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Y R S C H E M A2 Estimate -2.164287 0.1516874 -0.003821 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.337972 -6.40 0.053746 2.82 0.001496 -2.55 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.0092 0.0171 Lower 9 5 % -2.860348 0.0409971 -0.006902 Upper 9 5 % -1.468226 0.2623777 -0.000741 001613 All Participants Male Engineer/Lab In PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix M Page 18 RSCHEM = L ira Fi Linear Fit ln P F O S A A d f p p m = -5.1411 - 0.0164 Y R S C H E M Summary of Fit RSquare 0.024437 RSquare Adj -0.01308 Root M e a n Square Error 1.399249 M e a n of Response -5.4287 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 28 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 1.275122 1.27512 26 50.905372 1.95790 27 52.180494 F Ratio 0.6513 Prob>F 0.4270 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -5.141055 -0.016403 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.443812 -11.58 0.020326 -0.81 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.4270 Lower 9 5 % -6.053316 -0.058184 Upper 9 5 % -4.228794 0.0253771 001614 All Participants Male Engineer/Lab In M570ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix M Page 19 YRSCHEM = L ira Fl Linear Fit ln 570ppm = -3.1804 + 0.00328 Y R S C H E M Summary of Fit RSquare 0.00186 RSquare Adj -0.03653 Root M e a n Square Error 1.024495 M e a n of Response -3.12301 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 28 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.050840 0.05084 26 27.289336 1.04959 27 27.340175 F Ratio 0.0484 Prob>F 0.8275 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -3.180449 0.0032754 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.324948 -9.79 0.014882 0.22 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.8275 Lower 9 5 % -3.848383 -0.027315 Upper 9 5 % -2.512515 0.033866 001615 All Participants Male Engineer/Lab In PFOSA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix M Page 20 RSCHEM = Linear fl Linear Fit ln P F O S A d f p p m = -6.0798 + 0.01464 Y R S C H E M Summary of Fit RSquare 0.014659 RSquare Adj -0.02324 Root M e a n Square Error 1.620061 M e a n of Response -5.82314 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 28 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 1.015219 1.01522 26 68.239528 2.62460 27 69.254747 F Ratio 0.3868 Prob>F 0.5394 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -6.079806 0.0146365 Parameter Estimates Std Error tRatio 0.513848 -11.83 0.023534 0.62 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.5394 Lower 9 5 % -7.136028 -0.033737 Upper 9 5 % -5.023584 0.0630103 001616 All Participants Male Engineer/Lab In M556 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix M Page 21 YRSCHEM -- lineo Fi Linear Fit In M 55 6dfppm = -4.5528 + 0.00037 Y R S C H E M S ummary of Fit RSquare 0.000015 RSquare Adj -0.03845 Root M e a n Square Error 1.297208 M e a n of Response -4.54625 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 28 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.000661 0.00066 26 43.751480 1.68275 27 43.752141 F Ratio 0.0004 Prob>F 0.9843 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -4.552795 0.0003734 Parameter Estimates Std Error tRatio 0.411446 -11.07 0.018844 0.02 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.9843 Lower 9 5 % -5.398529 -0.03836 Upper 9 5 % -3.707061 0.039107 001617 Appendix N Page 1 Appendix N Scatterplots (and regressions) of fluorochemical levels of all chemical participant female chemical operators (n = 12) and engineer/lab (n = 9) with years worked in chemical 001618 All Participants Female Chemcial Operators In P F O S p p m B y Y R S C H E M Appendix N Page 2 YRSCHEM = Linear Fi Linear Fit In PFOSdfippm = 0.01226 - 0.00779 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.008557 RSquare Adj -0.09059 Root M e a n Square Error 0.578093 M e a n of Response -0.05134 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 12 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.0288427 0.028843 10 3.3419208 0.334192 11 3.3707635 F Ratio 0.0863 Prob>F 0.7749 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate 0.0122559 -0.007787 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.273326 0.04 0.026506 -0.29 Prob>|t| 0.9651 0.7749 Lower 9 5 % -0.596757 -0.066847 Upper 9 5 % 0.6212687 0.0512728 001619 Ail Participants Female Chemcial Operators In P F H S p p m By Y R S C H E M Appendix N Page 3 fflSCHEW = Linear Fi Linear Fit In P F H S d f p p m = -2.3774 + 0.05385 Y R S C H E M Sum ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.275351 RSquare Adj 0.202886 Root M e a n Square Error 0.602463 M e a n of Response -1.93766 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 12 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 1.3791706 1.37917 10 3.6296113 0.36296 11 5.0087819 F Ratio 3.7998 Prob>F 0.0798 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -2.377407 0.0538465 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.284848 -8.35 0.027623 1.95 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.0798 Lower 9 5 % -3.012092 -0.007703 Upper 9 5 % -1.742721 0.1153959 001620 All Participants Female Chemcial Operators In POAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix N Page 4 YRSCHEM = Linear Ft L in ea r F it In P O A A p p m = 0.32148 - 0.03055 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.079815 RSquare Adj -0.0122 Root M e a n Square Error 0.715366 M e a n of Response 0.072008 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 12 Source M odel E rror C T otal A n a ly sis of V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0 .4 4 3 8 7 8 1 0 .4 4 3 8 7 8 10 5 .1 1 7 4 8 2 8 0 .5 1 1 7 4 8 11 5 .5 6 1 3 6 0 9 F R atio 0 .8 6 7 4 P rob > F 0 .3 7 3 6 T erm Intercept YRSCHEM E stim ate 0.3214819 -0.030548 P aram eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.33823 0.95 0.0328 -0.93 P ro b > |t| 0.3643 0.3736 Low er 95% -0.432145 -0.103632 U pper 95% 1.075109 0.0425361 001621 All Participants Female Chemcial Operators In PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix N Page 5 YRSCHEW = Urea ft Linear Fit In P F O S A A d f p p m = -4,5678 - 0.0569 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y of Fit RSquare 0.06068 RSquare Adj -0.03325 Root M e a n Square Error 1.543965 M e a n of Response -5.0325 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 12 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 1.539949 1.53995 10 23.838281 2.38383 11 25.378230 F Ratio 0.6460 Prob>F 0.4402 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -4.56783 -0.056899 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.729997 -6.26 0.070792 -0.80 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.4402 Lower 9 5 % -6.194374 -0.214635 Upper 9 5 % -2.941286 0.1008375 001622 All Participants Female Chemcial Operators ln M570 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix N Page 6 YRSCHEM = Urea fi Linear Fit In 5 70 p p m = -2.1009 - 0.0371 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.111759 RSquare Adj 0.022934 Root M e a n Square Error 0.721322 M e a n of Response -2.40387 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 12 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.6546479 0.654648 10 5.2030495 0.520305 11 5.8576974 F Ratio 1.2582 Prob>F 0.2882 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -2.100903 -0.037098 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.341046 -6.16 0.033073 -1.12 Prob>|t| 0.0001 0.2882 Lower 9 5 % -2.860804 -0.110791 Upper 9 5 % -1.341001 0.0365942 001623 All Participants Female Chemcial Operators In P F O S A p p m B y Y R S C H E M Appendix N Page 7 tRSCHEM = Linea fi L in e a r Fit In P F O S A d f p p m = -4.6226 + 0.0764 Y R S C H E M Sum ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.095234 RSquare Adj 0.004758 Root M e a n Square Error 1.624037 M e a n of Response -3.99866 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 12 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 2.776184 2.77618 10 26.374947 2.63749 11 29.151132 F Ratio 1.0526 Prob>F 0.3291 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -4.622563 0.0763964 P aram eter E stim ates Std Error t Ratio 0.767855 -6.02 0.074464 1.03 Prob>|t| 0.0001 0.3291 Lower 9 5 % -6.333461 -0.08952 Upper 9 5 % -2.911665 0.2423128 001624 All Participants Female Chemcial Operators In M556 ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix N Page 8 HEM = Lm r Ft Linear Fit In M556dfjppm = -3.1494 - 0.05942 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.159673 RSquare Adj 0.075641 Root M e a n Square Error 0.940158 M e a n of Response -3.63466 Observations (or S u m W gts) 12 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 1.679525 1.67953 10 8.838975 0.88390 11 10.518500 F Ratio 1.9001 Prob>F 0.1981 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -3.149387 -0.059421 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.444513 -7.09 0.043107 -1.38 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.1981 Lower 9 5 % -4.13983 -0.155471 Upper 9 5 % -2.158945 0.0366281 001825 All Participants Female Engineer/Lab In P F O S p p m By Y R S C H E M Appendix N Page 9 YRSCHEM = Linea Fl Linear Fit ln P F O S d f p p m = -1.8939 + 0.01024 Y R S C H E M S u mm a r y of Fit RSquare 0.058759 RSquare Adj -0.0757 Root M e a n Square Error 0.505477 M e a n of Response -1.80801 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 9 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.1116544 0.111654 7 1.7885504 0.255507 8 1.9002048 F Ratio 0.4370 Prob>F 0.5297 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -1.893913 0.0102397 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.212779 -8.90 0.01549 0.66 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.5297 Lower 9 5 % -2.397059 -0.026388 Upper 9 5 % -1.390766 0.0468678 001626 All Participants Female Engineer/Lab Appendix N Page 10 = Lreafl Linear Fit In P FH Sd f p pm = -3.9868 + 0.03015 Y R S C H E M Sum ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.138988 RSquare Adj 0.015987 Root M e a n Square Error 0.925469 M e a n of Response -3.73389 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 9 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.9678134 0.967813 7 5.9954503 0.856493 8 6.9632637 F Ratio 1.1300 Prob>F 0.3231 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -3.986788 0.030147 Parameter Estimates Std Error tRatio 0.389573 -10.23 0.02836 1.06 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.3231 Lower 9 5 % -4.90799 -0.036915 Upper 9 5 % -3.065586 0.0972088 001627 All Participants Female Engineer/Lab Appendix N Page 11 = linear ft L in e a r Fit In P O A A p p m = -2.5628 + 0.00289 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f Fit RSquare 0.001765 RSquare Adj -0.14084 Root M e a n Square Error 0.848257 M e a n of Response -2.53853 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 9 Source M odel E rror C T otal A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF Sum of Squares M ean Square 1 0.0089035 0.008904 7 5.0367756 0.719539 8 5.0456791 F R atio 0.0124 P rob > F 0.9145 T erm Intercep t YRSCH EM E stim ate -2.562785 0.0028915 P a ra m eter E stim ates S td Error t R atio 0.357071 -7.18 0.025994 0.11 P ro b > |t| 0.0002 0.9145 Low er 95% -3.40713 -0.058575 U pper 95% -1.718439 0.0643584 001628 All Participants Female Engineer/Lab In PFOSAA ppm By YRSCHEM Appendix N Page 12 YRSCHEM = LiraFt Linear Fit In P F O S A A d f p p m = -6.1434 - 0.02633 Y R S C H E M S u mm a r y of Fit RSquare 0.103266 RSquare Adj -0.02484 Root M e a n Square Error 0.957088 M e a n of Response -6.36431 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 9 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.7384073 0.738407 7 6.4121225 0.916018 8 7.1505298 F Ratio 0.8061 Prob>F 0.3991 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -6.143411 -0.026333 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.402883 -15.25 0.029329 -0.90 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.3991 Lower 9 5 % -7.096087 -0.095686 Upper 9 5 % -5.190736 0.0430203 001629 Ail Participants Female Engineer/Lab In M 5 7 0 p p m B y Y R S C H E M Appendix N Page 13 YRSCHEM = Unta Fl L in ea r Fit ln 570ppm = -3.5233 + 0.01215 Y R S C H E M S u m m a r y o f F it RSquare 0.030399 RSquare Adj -0.10812 Root M e a n Square Error 0.846298 M e a n of Response -3.42136 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 9 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.1571845 0.157185 7 5.0135469 0.716221 8 5.1707315 F Ratio 0.2195 Prob>F 0.6537 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -3.523279 0.0121493 P aram eter E stim ates Std Error t Ratio 0.356247 -9.89 0.025934 0.47 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.6537 Lower 9 5 % -4.365676 -0.049176 Upper 9 5 % -2.680883 0.0734743 001630 Ail Participants Female Engineer/Lab In P F O S A p p m B y Y R S C H E M Appendix N Page 14 W HEM = Linear ft L in ea r F it ln P F O S A d f p p m = -5.5285 + 0.007 Y R S C H E M Sum ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.002879 RSquare Adj -0.13957 Root M e a n Square Error 1.605932 M e a n of Response -5.46983 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 9 Source Model Error C Total A n a ly sis o f V arian ce DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.052123 0.05212 7 18.053117 2.57902 8 18.105239 F Ratio 0.0202 Prob>F 0.8910 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -5.528517 0.0069962 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.676012 -8.18 0.049212 0.14 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.8910 Lower 9 5 % -7.127044 -0.109374 Upper 9 5 % -3.929989 0.123366 001G31 Ail Participants Female Engineer/Lab In M556 p p m By Y R S C H E M Appendix N Page 15 YRSCHEM = Lira fi Linear Fit ln M 55 6d f p p m = -5.0701 + 0.02647 Y R S C H E M S u m ma r y of Fit RSquare . 0.119476 RSquare Adj -0.00631 Root M e a n Square Error 0.886382 M e a n of Response -4.84805 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 9 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.7462412 0.746241 7 5.4997153 0.785674 8 6.2459565 F Ratio 0.9498 Prob>F 0.3622 Term Intercept YRSCHEM Estimate -5.070124 0.026472 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.37312 -13.59 0.027162 0.97 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.3622 Lower 9 5 % -5.952419 -0.037757 Upper 9 5 % -4.187828 0.0907015 001632 Appendix O Page 1 Appendix O Scatterplots (and regressions) of fluorochemical levels of random sample who worked were only in the film plant (n = 36) with years worked in film 001633 Random Sample Only Film Employees (Maintenance Workers Numbered) Appendix O Page 2 Lrear FI Pyramid FI dwree=2 Linear Fit InPFOSdfppm = -2.3024 + 0.00313 YrsFilm Summary of Fit RSquare 0.002948 RSquare Adj -0.02638 Root M e a n Square Error 0.585965 M e a n of Response -2.25946 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 36 Term Intercept YrsFilm Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.034516 0.034516 34 11.674079 0.343355 35 11.708595 F Ratio 0.1005 Prob>F 0.7531 Estimate -2.30237 0.0031336 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.166902 -13.79 0.009883 0.32 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.7531 Lower 9 5 % -2.641553 -0.016952 Upper 9 5 % -1.963187 0.0232187 001634 Appendix O Page 3 Polynomial Fit degree=2 lnPFOSdfppm = -2.5117 + 0.06209 YrsFilm - 0.0021 YrsFilmA2 Summary of Fit RSquare 0.083482 RSquare Adj 0.027935 Root M e a n Square Error 0.570251 M e a n of Response -2.25946 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 36 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 0.977453 0.488726 33 10.731142 0.325186 35 11.708595 F Ratio 1.5029 Prob>F 0.2373 Term Intercept YrsFilm YrsFilmA2 Estimate -2.511702 0.062089 -0.002097 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.203701 -12.33 0.035933 1.73 0.001231 -1.70 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.0934 0.0980 Lower 9 5 % -2.926132 -0.011017 -0.004602 Upper 9 5 % -2.097272 0.1351945 0.0004084 001635 Random Sample Only Film Employees Ln P F H S p p m By YrsFilm Appendix 0 Page 4 YrsFilm Uneorfi P^ncmol Fi destee-? Term Intercept YrsFilm Linear Fit InPFHSdfppm = -4.7215 + 0.00958 YrsFilm S ummary of Fit RSquare 0.011809 RSquare Adj -0.01814 Root M e a n Square Error 0.882741 M e a n of Response -4.58683 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 35 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.307286 0.307286 33 25.714619 0.779231 34 26.021905 F Ratio 0.3943 Prob>F 0.5343 Estimate -4.721471 0.0095783 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.26122 -18.07 0.015253 0.63 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.5343 Lower 9 5 % -5.252924 -0.021454 Upper 9 5 % -4.190018 0.0406102 001636 Appendix 0 Page 5 Polynomial Fit degree=2 InPFHSdfppm = -5.3019 + 0.16523 YrsFilm - 0.00548 YrsFilmA2 Summary of Fit RSquare 0.252796 RSquare Adj 0.206096 Root M e a n Square Error 0.779496 M e a n of Response -4.58683 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 35 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 6.578235 3.28912 32 19.443670 0.60761 34 26.021905 F Ratio 5.4132 Prob>F 0.0094 Term Intercept YrsFilm YrsFilmA2 Estimate -5.301864 0.1652333 -0.005481 Parameter Estimates Std Error tRatio 0.292996 -18.10 0.050289 3.29 0.001706 -3.21 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.0025 0.0030 Lower 9 5 % -5.898674 0.0627984 -0.008957 Upper 9 5 % -4.705053 0.2676682 -0.002006 001637 Random Sample Only Film Employees (Maintenance Workers Numbered) In P O A A p p m By YrsFilm Appendix O Page 6 Win Irei Fi PyramidFi deoree=2 Term Intercept YrsFilm Linear Fit I n P O A A p p m = -3.5336 + 0.01719 YrsFilm Summary of Fit RSquare 0.040923 RSquare Adj 0.01186 Root M e a n Square Error 0.838584 M e a n of Response -3.29191 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 35 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.990187 0.990187 33 23.206369 0.703223 34 24.196556 F Ratio 1.4081 Prob>F 0.2438 Estimate -3.533607 0.017194 Parameter Estimates Std Error t Ratio 0.248153 -14.24 0.01449 1.19 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.2438 Lower 9 5 % -4.038476 -0.012286 Upper 9 5 % -3.028739 0.0466736 001638 Polynomial Fit degree=2 InPOAAppm = -3.9585 + 0.13115 YrsFilm - 0.00401 YrsFiimA2 Summary of Fit RSquare 0.179823 RSquare Adj 0.128562 Root M e a n Square Error 0.787509 M e a n of Response -3.29191 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 35 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 2 4.351095 2.17555 32 19.845461 0.62017 34 24.196556 F Ratio 3.5080 Prob>F 0.0419 Term Intercept YrsFilm YrsFilmA2 Parameter Estimates Estimate Std Error -3.958504 0.296008 0.1311467 0.050806 -0.004013 0.001724 t Ratio -13.37 2.58 -2.33 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.0146 0.0264 Appendix 0 Page 7 001639 Random Sample Only Film Employees (Maintenance Workers Numbered) In P F Q S A A p p m By YrsFilm Appendix O Page 8 W in = Unetr Fi Linear Fit l n P F OS A A df p p m = -6.1143 + 0.00041 YrsFilm Summary oi Fit RSquare 0.000031 RSquare Adj -0.03027 Root M e a n Square Error 0.739574 M e a n of Response -6.10856 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 35 Term Intercept YrsFilm Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.000553 0.000553 33 18.050011 0.546970 34 18.050564 F Ratio 0.0010 Prob>F 0.9748 Estimate -6.114269 0.0004063 Parameter Estimates Std Error tRatio 0.218854 -27.94 0.012779 0.03 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.9748 Lower 9 5 % -6.559529 -0.025593 Upper 9 5 % -5.66901 0.0264053 001640 Random Sample Only Film Employees (Maintenance Workers Numbered) In M570 By YrsFilm Appendix O Page 9 Linear Fit lnM570 = -4.8046 - 0.00844 YrsFilm Summary of Fit RSquare 0.006167 RSquare Adj -0.02306 Root M e a n Square Error 1.089533 M e a n of Response -4.92021 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 36 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.250458 0.25046 34 40.360826 1.18708 35 40.611285 F Ratio 0.2110 Prob>F 0.6489 Term Intercept YrsFilm Parameter Estimates Estimate Std Error -4.804612 0.310334 -0.008441 0.018377 t Ratio -15.48 -0.46 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.6489 001641 Random Sample Only Film Employees (Maintenance Workers Numbered) In M5 5 6 p p m By YrsFilm Appendix 0 Page 10 W lm = Linear Fi Linear Fit lnM556dfppm = -6.0381 + 0.00926 YrsFilm Sum ma r y of Fit RSquare 0.005982 RSquare Adj -0.02325 Root M e a n Square Error 1.213109 M e a n of Response -5.91136 Observations (or S u m Wgts) 36 Source Model Error C Total Analysis of Variance DF S u m of Squares Mean Square 1 0.301128 0.30113 34 50.035524 1.47163 35 50.336652 F Ratio 0.2046 Prob>F 0.6539 Term Intercept YrsFilm Parameter Estimates Estimate Std Error -6.038109 0.345532 0.0092556 0.020461 t Ratio -17.47 0.45 Prob>|t| <.0001 0.6539 001642