Document N2ZoyybvXnvav5mw0xej850Yb
3 M Company Psge 1 of 121
FINAL REPORT Epidemiology, 220-3W-05
Medical Department 3M Company
St. Paul, MN 55144
Date: October 11,2001*
Title: A Cross-sectional Analysis of Serum Perfluorooctanesuifonate(PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in Relation to Clinical Chemistry, Thyroid Hormone, Hematology and Urinalysis Results from Male and Female Employee Participants of the 3,000Antwerp and Decatur Fluorochemical Medical SurveillanceProgram
Study Start Date: March I, 2000
Protocol Number (not applicable) IRB Approval
Exempt Expedjted
-x
IRBApproval Date: (not applicable as these data are from a medical surveillance --*
pro,oram?
Principal Investigator: Co-investigators:
Study Director:
Geary W. Olsen, D.V.M.P,h.D.'
Michele M. Burlew, M.S.' Jean M. Bums, R.N., M.P.H.' Jeffrey H. Mandel, MD.,M.P.H.'
Jeffrey H. Mandel, M.D.,M.P.H.'
1. 3M Medical Department. 230-3W-05,St. Paul, MN 55144-1000 *(Correctionsmade from previous version)
3M Company
:
Page 2 of 121
ABSTRACT
(
The 3M fluorochemical medical surveillance program is conducted on a routine
periodic basis at the company's Antwerp (Belgium) and Decatur (Alabama)
fluorochemical manufacturing plants. In the most recent occurrence in 2000, there were
255 Antwerp employees (206 male and 49 female) and 263 Decatur employees (215
male, 48 female) who participated in the program. This represents approximately 75 percent and 50 percent of the eligible employees at these two locations, respectively.
Seventy three percent of the participating Antwerp male employees and 75 percent of the Decatur employees were engaged in production activities. Only 12percent of the participating Antwerp female employees were engaged in production activities compared to 63 percent of the Decatur female employees.
Employees' sera were quantitatively analyzed forPFOS
(pcrfluorooctanesulfonat), PFOA (perfluorooctanoate!, PFHS (perfluorohexanesulfonate), PFOSAA (N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetate), M570 (N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetate), PFOSA
(perfluorooctanesulfonatearnidc) and M5S6 (perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetate) using
high=pressure liquid chromatography/lectrospray
tandem mass spectrometry
(HPLC/ESMSMS) and evaluated versus an extracted curve from a human serum matrix.
A total organic fluorine index (TOF) was also determined by calculating the percent of each specific fluorochemical's molecular weight that was attributed to organic fluorine and multiplied by the ppm measured for each ftuorochemical and then summed across all seven fluorochemicals.
3M Company Page 3 of 121 Mean serum PFOS levels for Antwerp production and non-production male workers were 1.16 and 0.42 ppm, respectively. Among Decatur production and non- . production male workers, their mean serum PFOS levels were 1.63 and 0.73 ppm, respectively. Mean serum PFOA levels for Antwerp male production and non-production workers were 1.28 and 0.34 ppm, respectively. Among Decatur male production and non-production workers, their mean serum PFOA levels were 2.34 and 0.59 ppm, respectively. The mean PFOS and PFOA levels for the Antwerp female employees (primarily nonproduction) were 0.13 ppm and 0.07 ppm, respectively. The mean PFOS and PFOA levels for Decatur female production and nonproduction employees were 0.93 and 1.23 ppm, respectively. Separate reports have been written which analyzed the employees' serurn levels in relation to their job and building location work assignments as obtained from a self-reported work history questionnaire. A standard set of hematological and clinical chemistry tests were analyzed. These included the following hematological tests: hematocrit (percent), hemoglobin (gm/dl), red blood cells (RBC, 1000/ram3), white blood cells (WBC, I000/mm 3) and platelet count ( I000/mm3); and the following clinical chemistry tests: alkaline phosphatase (IU/L), gamma glutarnyl transferase (GGT, I'U/L), aspartate aminotransferase (AST, I-U/L), alanine aminotransferase (ALT, IU/L), total and direct bilirubin (mg/dl), blood urea nitrogen (BUN, mg/dl), serum creatinine (mg/dl), blood glucose (m_dl), cholesterol (m_dl). high density Cholesterol (HDL, mg/dl) and triglycerides (mg/dl). Urinalyses were only assessed for Decatur employees via the standard urine microstick analysis, which tested for urine glucose, albumin and red blood cells. Six thyroid hormones were also assayed: thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH;/_IU/ml); serum thyroxine (T4;/z_dl.,);
3M Company Page 4 of 121 free thyroxine (free T4; n_dL); serum triiodothyronine (T3; p_mL); thyroid hormone binding ratio (THBR, %, previously referred to as T3 Uptake) and free thyroxine index
(FTI).
Statistical analyses wer_ conducted on the entire surveillance population as well as subgroups by gender, production worker (yes/no) and location. Univariate analyses categorized mean levels by serum PFOS quartile distributions. Multivadable regression was used to analyze the clinical chenaistry and thyroid hormones as dependent variables in relation to the independent effects of PFOS, PFOA or TOF adjusted for several demographic variables (age, body mass index, number of alcoholic drinks per day, cigarettes smoked per day and years worked).
There was a modest positive association between PFOS or PFO_ with cholesterol as well as a stronger positive association between PFOA and triglyceddes. These associations are inconsistent wi_ the known toxicological evidence that has shown the hypolipidemic (not hyperlipidernic) effect of PFOS (in rats and primates) and PFOA (in rats but no effect in primates) at dosages that produced serum PFOS or PFOA levels higher than those measured in this population. Therefore, it is unlikely the observed positive associations between PFOS or PFOA and lipids arc causal. Because of the potential confounding positive association with serum triglycerides, this variable was added to the hepatic clinical chemistry models as an independent variable. In these models, no significant.associations were observed with PFOS, PFOA or TOF in relation to alkaline phosphatase, GGT, AST, ALT or total bilirubin. Although T3 was positively associated with PFOA, no other thyroid hormones were associated with PFOS, PFOA or TOF: thus there is unlikely a causal explanation (e.g., hypothyroidism or
3M Company Page 5 of 121
hyperthyroidism) for this positive T3 association with PFOA. Hematological and urinalysriessultwsereunremarkable.
Insummary,thefindingfsromthe2000fluorochemimceadlicaslurveillance programcontinuteosuggestthatAntwerpandDecatufrluorochemicparloductioand non-productieomnployeedso nothavesignificcahnatngeisnserumcholesterol, lipoprotcoirnhsepatiecnzymesthatareconsistewnitthtoxicologifcianldingisn laboratoarnyimalsL.imitatioonfsthestudyincludietcsross-sectidoensailgnt,he voluntaprayrticipatriaotneasndthelowerlevelosfserumPFOS andPFOA measured amongthesemployeecsomparedwiththosesuspectetdocauseeffectisnlaboratory animalsA.lon_tudinaanlalysisreportesdeparatefloyrthefluorochemicmaeldical surveillaAnnctewerpandDecatuprrogramdatafrom1994throug2h000.
INTRODUCTION
3M Company Page 6 of 121
-
The 3M fluorochemical medical surveillance pro=o'ramis conducted on a routine
periodic basis at the company's Antwerp (Belgium) and Decatur (Alabama)
fluorochemical manufacturing plants. Prior to 1994, total organic fluorine was measured
rather than any specific fluorochemical analyte. Serum perfluorooctanesulfonate (I'FOS)
and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) have been routinely assayed since 1994/95 rather than
total organic fluorine. An analysis of the 1994/95 and 1997 medical surveillance
pi'ogram data in relation to Antwerp and Decatur employees' serum PFO$ levels have
been reported elsewhere (Olsen et al, 1998a, 1999a). In the 1994/1995 medical
surveillance program, a total of 178 employees participated (Antwerp = 88; Decatur =
o
90) and 149 employees participated in 1997 (Antwerp -- 65; Decatur = 84). A total of 61
Antwerp and Decatur employees participated in both years. The Antwerp male employee
population was si_ificantly younger than that at Decatur, had lower Body Mass Indices (BMI) and had hi_er self-reported daily consumption of alcohol. In addition, the
employees' clinical chemistry profiles were different for several tests. The Antwerp
employee population had lower mean alkaline phosphatase and triglyceride values and
higher total bilirubin and HDL values than the Decatur employee population. The
findings from this prior epidemiologic analysis suggested that si_ificant clinical
chemistry and hematological abnormalities were not associated with serum
perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFO$) levels up to 6 parts per million (Olsen et al 1998a;
1999a). Nor were there consistent associations reported between serum PFO$ and
several hormone tests including testosterone, estradiol and thyroid stimulating hormone
(T$I'D. It was not possible to derive inferences from the few employees who had serum
i
:
.
..
3M Company Page 7 of 121
PFOS levels > 6 ppm. An important limitation of this prior analysis was the low
voluntary participation of male employees (less than 50%) and insufficient sample size of
female employees which prevented a separate analysis. Also, although serum
perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) was measured, it was not included in the analyses.
Because the voluntary nature of the medical surveillance program may not
provide for a complete understanding of the distribution of serum fluorochemical levels
in the Decatur workforce, a random sample of 232 employees was selected for
fluorochernical testing in the Fall, 1998. The distributions of employee serum PFOS and
PFOA levels were comparable to the results reported in the voluntary Decatur medical
surveillance program (Olsen et al 1999b). This finding suggested that the distribution of
serum fluorochemical levels observed in the prior voluntary medical surveillance program likely reflected the distribution of serum PFOS and PFOA levels of all
employees in the chemical plant.
.
Detailed discussions of the toxicology and epidemiology of PFOS and PFOA
have been reported elsewhere (3M Company 2000; Alexander 2001a; 2001b; Butenhoff et al 2001: Gilliland and Mandel 1993:1996; Haughom and Spydevold 1992; Olsen et al 1998a; 1998b; 1999a; 2000; Pastoor et al 1987; Seacat et al 2001a; 2001b; Sohlenius et al
1993). For the purpose of brevity, this information will not be summarized in this
Introduction. Suffice it to mention that for the purpose of employee medical surveillance,
PFOS has been reported to be an inducer of peroxisome proliferation and hypolipidemia
in rodents (Pastoor et al 1987; Ikeda et al 1987; Haughom and Spydevold 1992; Seacat et
al 2001a: Sohlenius et al 1993 ) and primates (Seacat et al 2001b). PFOA has been
inconsistently reported to produce hypolipidemia in rodents (Pastoor et al 1987;
3M Company Page8 of t21
(
Haughom and Spydevold 1992;) and not in primates (Butenhoffet al 2001). The
mechanism of action pertaining to this hypolipidemia remains to be fully elucidated.
The purpose of this report was to conduct a cross-sectional analysis of the 2000
fluorochemicaI medical surveillance program for Antwerp and Decatur male and female
employees. Unlike the earlier report for Antwerp and Decatur employees which only
analyzed for PFOS (Olsen et al 1998a; 1999a), the present study examined associations
for both PFOS and/or PFOA as well as a calculated measure for total organic fluorine
(TOF). Longitudinal analy_es of employees who participated from 1994/95 through 2000 were not analyzed as this was a focus of a separate analytical report (Olsen et al 2001a).
o.
METHODS
The fluorochemical medical surveillance program is available, on a voluntary
basis, to all Antwerp and Decatur chemical plant employees and those site employees who may work in the chemical plant area. In 2000, approximately 340 Antwerp and 500
Decatur chemical plant and site employees were eligible to participate. In addition to the
fluorochemical testing program, a standard battery of clinical chemistry, pulmonary
-.
function and urinalysis (Decatur only) tests were performed on employees. In addition,
several thyroid hormones were measured, A site=specific work history was also
administered to all employee participants, Analyses of these self=reported workplace questionnaire data in conjunction with the employees' serum fluorochemical levels have been reported elsewhere for Antwerp (Olsen et al 2001b) and Decatur (Olsen et al, 2001c).
3MCompany Page9 of 12i
-
Hematology. Clinical Chemistryand Urinalysis
Allina Laboratory Services (St. Paul, Minnesota) performed the standard
hematological and clinical chemistry tests. These included the following hematolo_cal
tests: hematocrit (percent), hemoglobin (grrgdl), red blood cells (RBC, 1000/ram3), whim
blood cells (WBC, 1000/mm 3) and platelet count (1000/ram3); and the following
clinical chemistry tests: alkaline phosphatase (IU/L), gamma glutarnyl transferase (GGT,
1U/L), aspartate aminotransferasc (AST, IU/L), alanine arninotransferase (ALT, IU/L),
total and direct bilirubin (mg/dl), blood urea nitrogen (BUN, mg/dl), serum creatininc
(m_dl), blood glucose (mg/dl), cholesterol (mg/dl), high density cholesterol (HDL,
m_dl) and triglyce'rides (rag/all). Urinalyses were only assessed for Decatur employees
via the standard urine rrdcrostick analysis which tested for urine glucose, albumin and red blood cells. =oO.
ThyroidHormones Six thyroid tests were conducted by LabCorp(Kansas City, MO): thyroid
stimulating hormone (TSH; #IU/ml); serum thyroxine (T4; #g/dL); free thyroxine (free T4: ngdL): serum triiodothyronine (T3; pg/mL); thyroid hormone binding ratio (THBR, %, previously referred to as T3 Uptake) and free thyroxine index (FrI). TSH, free T4 and T3 were determined bYan immunochemiluminometric assay (ICMA). '1"4and THBR were determined by a cloned enzyme donorimmunoassay (CEDIA). FTI was calculated by multiplying T4 and THBR.
3MCompany Page10of 121
Fluorochemical Analyses Sera samples were extracted using an ion-pairing extraction procedure (Hansen et
al, 2001). The extracts were quantitatively analyzed for PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonate), PFOA (perfluorooctanoate), PFHS (perfluoroheanesulfonate), PFOSAA (N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetate), M570 (N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetate), PFOSA (perfluorooctanesulfonateamide) and M556 (perfluorooctariesulfonamidoacetate) using high-pressure liquid chromatography/electrospray tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/ESMSMS) and evaluated versus an extracted curve from a human serum matrix. Endogenous levels of certain fluorochemical were determined in the standard serum matrix and additional fluorochemical was spiked into the matrix. The total amount of each specific fluorochemical (endogenous + spiked) was used to construct an.extracted standard curve. All serum fluorochemical analyses were determined by Northwest Bioanaltyical Laboratory Inc. (Salt Lake City, LIT). A description of the distribution of
the serum fluorochemical levels is reported elsewhere for Antwerp(Olsen et al, 2001b)
and Decazur (Olsen et al, 2001c). For Antwerp, all employee serum values for PFOS and PFOA values were above
the lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ). There was one employee (0.3 percent) with a PFI-IS value below the LLOQ (0.0027 ppm) and one employee (0.3 percent) with a M570 below the LLOQ (0.0057 ppm). There were 111 employees (44 percent) with PFOSAA vaiues below the LLOQ (0.006 ppm): 88 employees (35 percent) were below the LLOQ (0.001 ppm) for PFOSA; and 13 employees (5 percent) were below the LLOQ (0.0043
3M Company Page 1! of 121 ppm) for M556. For Decatur, all employee serum values for PFOS, PFHS, PFOA and M570 were above the respective lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ). There were 8 (3 percent) employees with PFOSAA values below the LLOQ (0.006 ppm); 111 employees (42 percent) were below the LLOQ for PFOSA (0.001 ppm); and 13 employees (5 percent) were below the LLOQ for M556 (0.0043 ppm). For statistical analysis purposes, serum fluorochemical values that were less than the LLOQ were assumed to be the midpoint between zero and the LLOQ. A total organic fluorine index (TOF) was determined by calculating the percent of each specific fluorochemicars molecular weight that was attributed to organic fluorine (PFOS (64.7%); PFHS (61.9%): PFOA (69.0%); PFOSAA (55.3%); PFOSA (64.7%); M570 (56.6%)_d M556 (58.1%)) multiplied by the ppm measured for each fluorochemical and then summed across all seven fluorochemicals.
.-.
Data Analyses Serum PFOS and PFOA levels were the predominant fluorochemicals as the other
five analytes were measured at considerably lower levels (Olsen et al 2001b; 2001c); therefore. PFOS and PFOA were the only two specific fluorochemicals analyzed as explanatory, variables in regression models. TOF was also considered in the analyses which took into account these other analytes in an aggregate index (see above definition). Descriptive simple and stratified analyses, Pearson correlation coefficients, ANOVA and multivariable regression were used to evaluate associations between PFOS, PFOA and TOF and each hematolo_cal and clinical chemistry test and thyroid hormone assay. For stratified analyses, employees were divided into quartiles of their serum PFOS
3MCompany Page12of 121
/
distribution. Age, body mass index, Current alcohol consumption (drinks per day) and
cigarette use (cigarettes smoked per day), years worked at Antwerp or Decatur, and type
of job (production versus non-production) were potential confounding factors that were
considered in the analyses. Production jobs included cell operators, chemical operators,
mill operators and crew supervisors. Non-production jobs included engineers, QAJAC
laboratory and research workers, secretaries and managers.
Multivariable regression models were fitted with PFOS and/or PFOA analyzed
as a continuous variable(s). Significance of coefficients was considered at t6< .05.
Natural log transformations of the dependent variables were performed, when necessary,
to normalize variables and to enhance model fit. Study results were analyzed using the
SAS System (1990).
RESULTS
.
oo.
Altogether. there were 255 Antwerp employees (206 male and 49 female) and 263
Decatur employees (215 male. 48 female) who participated in the 2000 fluorochemical
medical surveillance program (Table 1). Seventy three percent of the Antwerp male
employees and 75 percent of the Decatur employees worked in production activities.
Only 12 percent of the Antwerp female employees worked in production activities
compared to 63 percent of the Decatur female employees.
Provided in Table 2 are the mean PFOS, PFOA and TOF values, demographic
values and clinical chemistry, and thyroid values for male employees stratified by location
and production or non-production work activities. Regardless of the production
categorization, Antwerp male employees compared to Decatur employees had lower
3MCompany Page13of 121
.....
serum PFOS and PFOA levels; were si_ificantly younger; had lower mean BMIs;
worked fewer years; drank, on average, more alcoholic beverages per day; had higher mean HDL and total bilirubin values; and had lower mean triglyceride, alkaline
phosphatase, GGT, AST and ALT values. Mean thyroid hormone values tended to be
higher among Antwerp employees. All mean values were within reference ranges. Comparable findings were observed for Antwerp female employees compared to Decatur female employees (Table 3).
Given the differences between Antwerp and Decatur employees, univariate analyses were initially stratified by location. Antwerp data, stratified by gender and
production, are provided in Tables 4 through 12. In a similar fashion Decatur employee data are provided in Tables 13-24. The Decatur data also include employee urinalysis results.
Antwerp production male employee data (n " 150!,.stratified by quartile of serum PFOS distribution, is presented in three sequential tables for clinical chemistry (Table 4) and thyroid hormones (Table 5) and hematology (Table 6) results. The highest quartile (4in)mean serum PFOS level was 2.61 ppm (range 1.76 - 6.24 ppm) compared to the lowest quartile (I st) mean serum PFOS level of 0.29 pprn (range 0.04 - 0.41 ppm). Production workers in the highest quartile of serum PFOS levels were older and worked
more years at Antwerp. There were no significant mean differences between the quartiles for BMI, cigarettes smoked or drinks per day. There was only one si=maificandtifference between the four quartile levels for any clinical chemistry, thyroid hormone or hematology comparisons. This significant difference was the comparison of the mean BUN value between the Ist and 3requartiles.
3M Company Page 14 of 121
In a similar fashion for the 56 non-production Antwerp male employees, their clinical chemistry, thyroid hormone and hematology results are presented in Tables 7, 8 . and 9, respectively, for their quartile distribution of serum PFOS. In this analysis, the highest quartile had a mean serum PFOS level of 0.90 ppm (range 0.49 - 1.76) compared to a mean of 0.13 ppm (range 0.05-0.20 ppm) in the lowest quartile. No significant mean differences were observed for demographic (Table 7), clinical chemistry (Table 7), thyroid hormone (Table 8) or hematology (Table 9) comparisons between the serum PFOS quartile distributions.
Among the 49 Antwerp production and non-production female employees analyzed as a _oup (Table 10), the highest quartile mean serum PFOS level was 0.26 ppm (range 0.15- 0.55) compared to the lowest quartile mean serum PFOS level of 0.06
o
ppm (range 0.04 - 0.08 ppm). The highest serum PFOS quartile did not significantly diffedremographicatlhlayntheotherthreqeuartil(eTsableI0).The lowerthree quartilheasdsomesignificdainftferencbestweenthemselvefsorthemeancomparisons ofyearsworkedanddrinkpserday.OnlyonecliniccahlemistrByU,N, wassignificantly differebnettweenthequartilaessthe3'aand4" quartilheasdhighemrean BUN values
than the Ia quartileA.llmean valueswere withinreferenceranges. No significanmtean
thyroihdormone(TableII)orhematolog(yTable12)differenwcaesobservebdetween thequartiles.
A totaolf161l_aturproductimoanleemployeewserestratifbiaesdedontheir quartidliestributoifosnerumPFOS (Table13).The highesqtuartihlaeda 3.22ppm mean serumPFOS leve(lrang2e.31- 10.06c)omparedto0.55ppm mean serumPFOS leveilnthelowesqtuartilTeh.erewereno significmaenatn demographidcifferences
/
3M Company Page 15 of 121
between the four quartilesand the only clinical chemistry test thatwas significantly different was ALT (Table 13). The highest quartile had a significantly higher meanALT level (44 IU/ml) comparedto the Ist(33 IU/ml), 2_a(32 IU/ml) or 3_ (33 lU/ml) quartiles. There were no significant mean differences for the Decatur male production employee quartiledistributions for thyroid hormones (Table 14), hematology (Table 15) or urinalysis (Table 16) results.
Among the $4 Decatur non-productionmale employees (Table 17), their hi_est quartile mean serum PFOS level was 1.66 ppm (range 1.00 - 2.95 15pro)comparedto the lowest quartile mean of 0.19 ppm (range 0.06 - 0.29 ppm). The highest quartileworked almost twice as long as the lowest quartile(Table 17). There were no significant differences in other demographics, clinical chemistries (Table 17), thyroid hormones (Table 18), hematology (Table 19) or urinalysis (Table 20) results among the quartile distributions.
o.o.
Among the 48 Decatur productionandnon-production female employees (Table 21), the highest quartilehad a mean serum PFOS level of 2.04 ppm (range 1.38 - 3.62 ppm) compared to the lowest quartile mean serum PFOS level of 0.20 ppm (range0.06 0.31ppm).Them werenosignificdainftferencbeestweenthequartiliensrelatitoon demographic(sTable2I),cliniccahlemistri(eTsabl2eI)orthyroihdormones(Tabl2e2). The thirqduartihlaeda si2nificanltolwyermean platelceotuntthanthe1*tquartile (Table23):howevert,hefourtqhuartiwlaes notsignificanldoywerthantheIstquartile. Urinalysfiisndingdsidnotdiffebry quarti(lTeabl2e4).
PresenteidnTable25 arcthenumber(andpercentagoef)AntwerporDecatur employeewshichhadabovereferenrcaengevaluefsorhepaticcliniccahlemistrtyests.
3M Company Page 16of 121 These findin_ in Table 25 are stratified by serum PFOS quartile distribution within each of the gender and production/non-production categories. Because each sub-population has a different serum PFOS quartile distribution, comparisons should only be done within each location-, production- and gench,-r-specific category. Also presented is the number and percentage of employees who had one or more liver enzyme and bilirubin tests above the reference ranges (see aggregate total liver panel). The percentage of Antwerp employees whose liver enzyme tests were above reference range values was comparable for production and non-production male employees. Among Decatur employees, there was a higher percentage of production male employees in the 4m quartile for ALT, GGT and the total liver panel than the other quartiles. For non.-production male employees, the highest percentages occurred in the second or third quartiles. Neither Antwerp or Decatur female employees had percentages consistent with any trend in the quartile distributions. Provided in Tables 26 and 27 are the serum PFOS quartile distributions for the combined 421 Antwerp and Decatur production and non-production male employees. The highest quartile (4m) had a mean serum distribution of 2.69 ppm (range 1.69 - I0.06 ppm) compared to 0.27 ppm mean (range 0.04 - 0.42 ppm) compared to the lowest (I st) quartile distribution. It is important to note that the number (and percentages) of Antwerp versus Decatur employees in each of these four quartiles differ (see footnote to Table 26). In the Iowost (I _t)quartile, there is a greater percentage of Antwerp than Decatur male employees and more non-production than production employees. In the subsequent higher serum PFOS quartiles, the percentage of Decatur production male employees increased and the percentage of non=production male employees, whether
3M Company Page 17of 12! from Antwerp or Decatur, decreased. These differences were also reflected in the demographics between quartiles. For example, demographically the trend from the lowest to highest quartile increased with age, BMI and years worked and decreased with the mean number of alcohol drinks per day. Likewise, the means of the clinical chemistry and thyroid hormone tests were reflective of the higher percentage of Antwerp employees in the lower quartiles and higher percentage of Decatur employees in the higher quartiles. Mean triglyceride and alkaline phosphatase levels were lower and total bilirubin levels were higher in the lowest quartile compared to the highest quartile. For thyroid hormones, T3 was lower in the I stquartile compared to the 4_ quartile and THBR was significantly higher. Combinc_d analyses of Antwerp and Decatur production and non-production female employees (Tables 28 and 29) presented a similar distribution of employees by location and production pattern as was observed with the production and non-production male employees (Tables 26 and 27). Antwerp female employees predominated in the lowest quartile and Decatur female employees predominated in the highest quartile. This distribution difference is then seen with the lower mean age, BMI and alkaline phospham,sc findings and the _-eater number of drinks per day and higher total bilirubin levels in the lowest quartile compared to the highest quartile. Also observed was a lower mean GOT and blood glucose level in the lowest quartile when compared to the highest quartile. There were no thyroid hormone differences between the quartile distributions (Table 29). Summarized in Table 30 are the combined number of Antwerp and Decatur employees (and percentages) who had hepatic clinical chemistry, tests above reference
3M Company Page 18 of 121
......
range values stratified by quartile of the serum PFOS distribution. Among male
employees, twelve percent of the employees had above reference range values for ALT
and GGT in the 4_ quartile compared to 4 to 8 percent in the Is_through3_ quartiles. For
the total liver panel, 23 percent of the male employees had one or more liver clinical
chemistry tests above the reference range value compared to 14 to 16 percent in the lower
three quartiles. No differences were observed within the female employee population.
These percentages were not adjusted forpotential confounding factors (e.g., BMI).
Because the hi_er liver enzyme function test resultsin the 4'hquartile might be
confounded by demographics (higher BMI, older age) and/or clinical chemistry tests
(triglycerides) reflective of dietary differences, multivariableregression analyses were
conducted on ti'iecombined Antwerp and Decatur male employee participants. Each
regression model had the following variables: productionjob (yes = 1; no = 0);
....
Antwerp/Decatur (l = Antwerp; 0 = Decatur); age, BMI, cigarettes per day, drinks l_r
day and yearsworked. For the analyses that invoh'ed hepatic clinical chemis_y tests,
triglycerides was also considered a potentialexplanatory variable. Re=_'essionmodels
analyzed serum PFOS, serum PFOA, serumPFOS and PFOA, and total organic fluorine (TOt=)..
Provided in tables 31 through 34 are the analyses for these fluorochemical
comparisons in relation to their effect on cholesterol, adjusted for the other explanatory
variables. Serum PFOS was positively associated with cholesterol although its
explanation of the variability of cholesterol in the model was less than I percent (see
partial R:). (Note: This positive association is opposite that of the well.established
negative association between serum cholesterol and PFOS that have been shown to occur
3M Company Page 19 of 121
(<
in toxicological studies at threshold serum doses that were approximately 2 ordersof
magnitude hi_er than those serum PFOS levels observed in these employees.) Like
PFOS (Table 31), there were positive significant associations each for PFOA (Table 32)
and TOF (Table 34) with cholesterol but the model that jointly examined the effects of
PFOS and PFOA found neither to be significant (Table 33). Again, this is contrary to the
toxicological research that has shown PFOA lowers serum cholesterol. Age and drinks
per day were significant variables in the model with cholesterol. PFOS and TOF were
not significantly associated with HDL, but PFOA was significantly negatively associated
(Tables 35 through 38). As to be expected, BMI and drinks per day were stron_y
associated with HDL. Analysis of triglycerides showed PFOS, PFOA and TOF were
positively associated (Tables 39 through 42). PFOA appeared to be the more significant
predictor than PFOS. (Note: PFOS and PFOA have decreased serum triglyceride levels
(
at toxicological doses, not increased serum triglyceride levels.) Age, BMI and cigarettes
smoked per day were significant variables in the triglycedde models found in Tables 39
through 42. Provided in Figures 1 through 3 are scatter plots of the simple linear
regressions between the natural log of serum trigiycerides and PFOA for Antwerp male,
Decatur male and Antwerp and Decatur female employees;
Multivariable regression model results for the hepatic clinical chemistry analyses
axe found in Tables 43 through 62. Because of the potential confounding positive
association with serur0 triglycerides, this variable is added to these models. No
significant associations were observed with PFOS, PFOA and TOF in relation to alkaline
phosphatase (Tables 43 through 46), GGT (Tables 47 throu_ 50) or AST (Tables 51
through 54). Although PFOS or PFOA were not significantly associated with ALT
3MCompany Page20of 121
/-
(Tables 55 - 57), TOF was positively associated with ALT (Table 58). PFOS, PFOA or
!
TOF were not si_ificant predictors of total bilirubin (Tables 59-62).
Multivariable regression analyses of the thyroid hormones resulted in no
significant associations of PFOS, PFOA or TOF with TSH (Tables 63 - 66), T4 (Tables
67 - 70), Free T4 (Tables 7 t - 74), TI-IBR(Tables 75 - 78) or FTI (Tables 79 - 82).
PFOS, PFOA and TOF were positively associated with T3 although contributed
minimally to the variation explained in the model (see partial R2).
DISCUSSION Although voluntary participation rates ranged from 53 percent (Decatur) to 75
percent (Antwerp), the 2000 fluorochemical medical surveillance program had the most (in absolute numbers) employee male and female participants ever for both locations. This is !!.kely due to a combination of factors including 1) greater knowledge of the collective (individual and research) value of the fluorochemical medical surveillance proem'am:2) employee awareness about the persistence and prevalence of PFOS in human tissue and the environment; and 3) the company's May 16, 2000 phase out announcement that it would cease production of perfluorooctanyl chemistry in certain repellents and surfactants by the end of 2000.
Serum PFOS and PFOA levels were comparable to those previously reported for employees at these manufacturing operations. Serum levels appeared to be log normally distributed with the highest values for PFOS at 10 ppm. This upper tail of the serum PFOS distribution was also reported in a random sample analysis of Decatur employees conducted in 1998 (Olsen et al 1999b). Separate reports examine the employees' serum
3MCompany Page21of 121 PFOS, PFOA, PFHS, PFOSAA, M570, PFOSA and M556 levels measured in the 2000 fluorochemical medical surveillance program with their workplace operations in Antwerp (Olsen et al, 2001b) and Decatur (Olsen et al, 2001c). We continued to observe consistent differences between Antwerp and Decatur employees regarding their demographics and lifestyle differences. In particular, Antwerp male employees, on average, were younger (and thus worked less), had much lower BMIs and drank more alcoholic beverages than their Decatur counterparts. All three differences can be important confounding variables when analyzing lipid and hepatic clinical chemistry tests. We have also consistently seen higher total bilirubin values among Antwerp employees since 1995 which may be partially attributable to a greater prevalence of Gilbert's syndrome (Olsen et al 1998a; 1999a). An inconsistent finding from these aggregate analyses was the positive associations in the multivariable models reported between PFOS and serum cholesterol and PFOA and serum cholesterol and triglycerides. There is a substantial body of toxicological literature to suggest these associations are spurious because PFOS (in rats and primates) has been reported to decrease serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels (3M Company 2000; I-Iaughom and Spydcvold 1992; Ikeda et al 1987; Pastoor et al 1987; Seacat et al 2001a; 2001b; Sohlenius et al 1993). On the other hand, there is inconsistent evidence for hypolipidemia with PFOA in rodents (Pastoor et al 1987; Haughom and Spydevold 1992) and no effect observed in primates (Butenhoff et al 2001). In primates, there was no association observed between PFOA and cholesterol or triglyceddes (Butenhoff et al 2001). There is no toxicolo_cal evidence that at the serum PFOA levds observed in our medical surveillance program that PFOA would have resulted in
3MCompany Page22of 12!
("
hypcrlipidemic associations. In addition, the PFOA levels observed among Antwerp and
Decatur employees in 2000 was lower than those measured in 3M's Cottage Grove
manufacturing employees whose serum PFOA levels have been assayed as high as 100 ppm. Hypolipidemic or hyperlipidemic effects have not been associated with serum
PFOA levels among these Cottage Grove employees (Gilliland and Mandel 1996; Olsen et al, 2000). Most recently, the 2000 Cottage Grove fluorochemical medical surveillance
program analysis again showed no association between serum PFOA levels and serum
cholesterol or h"iglyceddcs (as seen in Figure 4). (Note: The serum PFOA levels graphed in Figure 4 are substantially higher than those cited in Figures I through 3 for the
Antwerp and Decatur male and female employees.) We therefore believe that it is highly unlikely that these arc causal associations observed in the 2000 fluorochemical medical surveillance data between PFOA and serum cholesterol and triglycerides.
:
Previous toxicological and.e.pidemiological research has also not suggested
positive associations between elevated serum liver enzymes results and serum PFOS or
PFOA that were at the levels observed in the Antwerp and Decatur employee population
(3M Company, 2000; Butenhoff et al 2001; Gilliland and Mandel 1996: Olsen et al
1998a; 1999a; 2000; Seacat et al 2001a; 2001b). In this 2000 fluorochemical medical
surveillance program we observed, among Decatur production employees, a significantly
greater mean ALT among those workers in the highest serum PFOS quartile distribution compared to the other,three quartiles. This highest quartile of Decatur employees also had the greatest percentage of employees with ALT (28%) and GGT (15%) values above
the reference range as well as the total liver panel (35%). A comparable percentage (36%) was observed among Decatur non-production employees in the second lowest
3M Company Page23 of 121
quartile with one or more hepatic clinical chemistry tests above the reference range.
When male employees were combined by production status and location (as seen in
Table 30), we reported an upward trend in the percentage of employees in the highest
quartile with values above the reference range for ALT (12%), GGT (12%) and total liver
panel (23%). However, after adjusting the employees' individual liver function values by
potential confounding factors including age, BMI, number of alcoholic drinks per day, cigarettes per day and serum trigiyceride values, we found no association between liver
function values and PFOS or PFOA. We therefore suspect that the univariate associations were influenced by known confounders of liver function analyses
A battery of thyroid hormone tests were included in the 2000 fluorochemical medical surveillance program due to preliminary, albeit biologically inconsistent, findings in toxicolo_cal studies that have yet to be completed. Our surveillance data do
not s.ug. gest any biologically sig'nificant associations between thyroid hormones and employees' measured serum PFOS, PFOA or calculated TOF levels.
A retrospective cohort mortality study of Decatur employees from 1961-1997 reported 3 deaths from bladder cancer compared to 0.2 expected in the subgroup of workers with the highest potential exposure to perfluorooctancsulfonyl fluoride ('POSF)based chemistry, and materials (Alexander 2001b). It was not determined whether this association was fluorochemical-related or possibly due to other non-fluorochemical
occupational or non-o0cupational exposures. An analysis of episode of cares (Olsen et al 2001d) reported a higher reoccurrence of cystitis among female Decatur chemical plant workers than their counterparts in the film plant although the actual prevalence of unique
individuals with episodes of care reg .arding cystitis was similar. No differences were
3MCompany Page24of 121
reported among male chemical and film plant employees. The analysis of these 2000
fluorochemical medical surveillance data showed no association between the prevalence
of abnormal urinalyses and employee serum PFOS levels among the Decatur employees.
Limitations of this study design include its cross-sectional nature which does not
adequately allow for the assessment of temporal changes. However, the large
participation of employees in 2000 who may have participated in the 1994/95 and/or
1997 fluorochemical medical surveillance programsat these two manufacturing sites has
enabled a longitudinal analysis to be performed. This longitudinal analysis is the focus of
a separate 3M investigation (Olsen et al, 2001a). Althou_ still very limited in numbers,
we were able to provide separate cross-sectional analyses for female employees, for the
first time, which showed no biologically relevant associations between se_'m PFOS
and/or PFOA levels with clinical chemistries, thyroid hormones or hematology results.
Because 3M has announced a phase-out of the production of pcrfluorooctany[ chemistry-
related materials, we anticipate that the Antwerp and Decatur employee population mean PFOS and PFOA serum levels should be lower when measured during the next
fluorochemical medical surveillance program. These future analyses may be hindered by the fewer employees in the workfor_e as a consequence of the phase-out announced by
the company. Another study limitation was the lower serum PFOS and PFOA levels
measured among these employees compared with those suspected to cause effects in
laboratory animals.
"
In summary, the findin_ from the 2000 fluorochemical medical surveillance
program continue to suggest that Antwerp and Decatur fluorocheraical production and
non-production employees do not show substantial changes in serum hepatic enzymes,
3MCompany Page25 of 121 cholesterol, or lipoproteins associated with the serum PFOS and PFOA levels measure& A separate lon_tudinal analysis is reported for the fluorochemical medical surveillance Antwerp and Decatur program data from 1994 through 2000.
ACKNOWLEDGEM_I'S The investigators acknowledge the contributions of Kimbcrly Young in the
prcpartion of this report.
f
REFERENCES
3MCompany Page26 of 121
3M Company (2000). SIDS Initial assessment repot: Peffluorooctane sulfonic acid and its salts. St. Paul (_E_):3M Company, (unpublished report).
Alexander BH (2001a). Mortality study of workers employed at the 3M Cottage Grove facility. Minneapolis (Ml_:University of Minnesota, (unpublished report).
Alexander BH (2001b). Mortality study of workers employed at the 3M Decatur facility. _finneapolis (MN):University of Minnesota, (unpublished report).
Butenhoff TL, Costa G, Elcombe C, Farrar D, Hansen K, Iwal H, Jung R, Kennedy G, Lieder P, Olsen GW, Thomford P. Toxicity of ammonium perfluorooctanoate (APFO) in cynomolgus monkeys after 26 weeks of oral dosing. St. Paul (MN):3M Company, (unpublished report)
Gilliland FD, Mandel JS (1993). Mortality among employees of a perfluorooctanoic acid production plant. J Occup Med 35:950-954.
Gilliland F'D, Mandel. JS (1996). Serum perfluorooctanoic acid and hepatic enzymes,
lipoproteins and cholesterol: a study of occupationally exposed men. Am J Ind Med 129:560-568.
Hansen KJ, Clemen LA, Ellefson ME, Johnson JHO (2001). Compound-specific,
quantitative characterization of organic fluorochemicals in biolo_cal matrices. Environ
Sci Technol 35:766-770.
"'"
Haughom B, Spydevold O (1992). The mechanism underlying the hypolipemic effect of perfluooctanoic acid (PFOA). perfluoroctanesulphonic acid (PFOSA) and clofibric acid. Biochemica et Biophysica Acta 1128:65-72.
Ikeda T, Fukuda K, Mori I, Enomoto M, Komai T, Suga T (1987). Induction of c?xochrome P-450 and pcroixome proliferation in rat liver by perfluorinated octanesulfonic acid. In: Peri.rosmes in Biology and Medicine. (HD Fahrni and H Sies, eds) New York:Springer Verlag, pp 304-308.
Olsen GW. Burr'is J'M, Mandel JH, Zobel LR (1998a). An epidemiologic investigation of clinical chemistries, hematology and hormones in relation to serum levels of perfluorooctane sulfoeate in male fluorochemical production employees. St. Paul:3M Company (unpublished report).
Olsen GW, Gilliland FD, Burlew MM, Bun'is JM, Mandel JS, Mandel JH (1998b). An epidemiolo_c investigation of reproductive hormones in men with occupational exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid. JOEJv! (40(7):614-621.
3M Company Page27 of 121
Olsen GW, Bun'is JM, Mandel JH, Zobel LR (1999a). Serum perfluorooctane sulfonate and hepatic and lipid clinical chemistry tests in fluorochemical production employees. JOEM 41 (9):799-806.
Olsen GW, Logan PW, Simpson CA, Hansen KJ, Burris JM, Burlew lk,_VI,Schumpert JC, Mandel JH (1999b). Fluorochemical exposure assessment of Decatur chemical and film plant employees. St. Paul:3M Company (unpublished report).
Olsen GW, Burris J'M, Burlew MM, Mandel JH (2000). Plasma cholecystokinn and hepatic enzymes, cholesterol and lipoproteins in ammonium penCluorooctanoate production workers. Drug Chem Toxicol 23(4):603-620.
Olsen GW, Burlew MM, Burris JB, Mandel J'M (2001a). A longitudinal analysis of serum perlfuorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) levels in relation to lipid and clinical chemistry test results from male employee participants of the 1994/95, 1997 and 2000 fluorochemical medical surveillance program. St. Paul, MN:3M Company (unpublished report).
Olsen GW, Schmickler MN, Tierens J'M, Logan PW, Bun'is JM, Burlew MM, Lundberg JK. Mandel JH !2001b). Descriptive summary of serum fluorochemical levels among employee participants of the year 2000 Antwerp fluorochemical medical surveillance program. St. Paul:3M Company (unpublished report).
Olsen GW, Logan PW, Simpson CA, Bun'is JM, Burlew MM, Lundberg .IK, Mandel JI-I (2001c). Descriptive summary of serum fluorochemical levels among employee participants of the year 2000 Dec_t'ur fluorochemical medical surveillance program. St Paul:3M Company (unpublished report).
Olsen GW, Burlew _'VLMH, ocking BB, Skratt JC, Burris J1VI,Mandel J'H (2001d). An epidemiolo_c analysis of episodes of care of 3M Decatur chemical and film plant employees, 1993-1998. St. Paul 1_1:3M Company (unpublished report).
P_toor "i'P, Lee KP, Perri lvIA, Gillies PJ (1987). Biochemical studies of ammonium perfluorooctnoate-induced hepatomegaly proliferation. Exp Mol Pathol 47:98-109.
and morphological and peroxisome
SAS Institute, Inc. (1990). SAS Users Guide:Statistics Version 6. Cary, NC:SAS Institute Inc.
Seacat AM, Thomford PJ, Hansen KI, Clemen LA, Case biT, Butenhoff J'L (2001a). Sub.chronic dietary, toxicity, of potassium perfluorooctanesulfonic acid in rats. Toxicol Sci (submitted 200 la).
Seacat AM, Thoford PJ, Hansen KJ, Olsen GW, Case M'T, Butenhoff JL. Subchronic toxicity studies on pea'fluorooctanesulfonate potassium salt in cynomolgus monkeys. Toxicol Sci (submitted, 2001b).
3M Company Page 28 of 121
Sohlenius AK, Eriksson AM, Hogstrom C, Kimland M, DePierre JW (1993). Perfluorooctansulfonic acid is a potent inducer of peroxisomal fatty acid B-oxidation and other activities known to be affected by peroxisome proliferators in mouse liver. Pharmacol Toxicol 72:90-93.
r. oo..
Table 1 Number of Employee Participants in the 2000 Antwerp a,ld Decatur Medical Surveillance Programs
'_... Comp:'l_y Page29 of l_l
Antwe,p (N = 255)
Male (N = 206) Production Non-Production
Female (N = 49) Production Non-Production
150 (73)*
56 (27)* "
6 (12)*
43 (88)*
Decatur (N = 263)
. Male (N = 215)
Production
Non-Production
Female (N = 48)
Production
Non-Production
161 (75)*
54 (25)*
30 (63)*
18 (37)*
*Percent in parenthesis
PFOS PFOA TOF Age BMI Years Worked Cigaretles/day Drinks/day Cholesterol , tlDL Triglycerides Alk Phos GGT AST ALT
Table 2
Mean ValueforMale Eml)loyeeParticipantSse'rum FluomchemicalLevels, Demographics,ClinicaClhemistrieasndThyroidResults
... Company Page 30 of 121
All Antwerp(N = 206) Decatu(rN = 215)
0.96d
1.41)
1.1)3'*
1.90
. 1.6(:
2.65
37d
43
24.8d
28,8
13"
!6
4 I. I '+ 2 i8 55d
6 0. I 215 44
1244
191
60d
74
23"
3i
23c
26
23 d
35
Production Antwerp(N = 150) Decatur(N = 161)
I.IC
1.63
1.28"
,2.34
!.97 d
3.18
36d
42
24.64
28.9
12'
15
5 I. Id 215 55d
6 O.l 217 43
1244
198
" 60d
76
23d
31
23d
26
22d
36
Non-Production Antwerp(N = 56) De.calu(rN= 54)
0.42b
0.73
0.34b
{).59
0.61 b
1.07
40b
45
25.2d
28.4
15=
22
2 I. !a 225' 55c
5 0.2
209 45
122b
169
60"
67
26b
29
24
25
25
31
Total Biliruhi,1 Direct Bilirubi.
BUN
Creatinine Glucose TSH T4 Free T4 T3 THBR F['I
1.0 d
().I_
19d
1.2 85d
2.0' K.2 I. I_ 13ib 34d 2.7"
p < .05 compared to Dcca;ur (t It=st) Up < .01 comparedto Decatur (t tesl) o p < .OOl comparedto Decatur (t lest) d p < .O00l compared to Decatur (t to.st)
0.7 (|. I
15
I. 1 95
2.9 8.4 I.I 125 31 2.5
Table 2 (continued) 1.0d O.Ih
19d
I. I d
84 d
2.0" 8.3 I. Ic 132'
34 d
2.7"
0.7 0.1
15
1.2 95 3.I 8.4
I.I 127 30
2.5
I. Id 0. !
19d
1.2 87'
1.9 X.I 1.1 126
35 d
2.7'
_.l Company Page31 of 121 0.8 0.1
15
I. 1 94 2.2 1_.5
I.I 120 31
2.5
Table 3
3M Compan Page 32 of 12
(
Mean ValuesforFemaleEmployeeParticipanStesr'umFluorochemicLaelvels,
DemographicCsl,inicCahlemistriaensdThyroiRdesults
PFOS PFOA TOF Age BMI YearsWorked
Antwerp (N = 49) 0.13d 0.07d 0.17n
36 22.8d 12a
Decatur (N = 48) 0.93 1.23 1.76
42 27.7 13
Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Cholesterol HDL
2d 0.5d 208 68a
5 0.I 200 59
Trigiycerides
94a
133
Alk Phos
46a
65
....
GGT
12 d
18
....
AST
18
"
20
ALT
13d
19
Total Bilirubin
0.8b
0.6
Direct Bilirubin
0.I
0. I
BUN
16
12
Creatinine
0.9
0.8
Glucose
85
87
TSH
2.3
2.3
T4
I0.2
9.3
Free T4 "
1A b
1.0
T3
148 b
128
THBR
3
28
FTI
2.9a
2.5
p < .05 compared to Decatur (student t test) bp < .01 compared to Decatur (student t test) c p < .001 compared to Decatur (student t test) dp < .0001 compared to Decatur (student t test)
PFOS PFOA TOF
Table 4
_ .Company Page 33 of 121
Fluorochemical,
Antwelp Male Production Demographic and Clinical Chemistry
Employee (N = 150) Results by Quartile of Serum
PFOS
Distlibution
Mean
QuartilIe(H = 37)
Median SD
R_u,_
0.29"1'4 0.33 0.11 0.04-0.41
Mean 0.58_'4
Qu_util2e(H = 38)
Median Sl)
RanBe
0.57 0.12 0.41-0.78
Mean
Quan!le3 (N = 38)
Median SD
RanBe
1.18'_4 1.16 0.22 0.79- 1.66
Mean 2.61t'z3
Quartil4e(N : 37)
Media,, SD
RanEe
2.27
1.06 1.67-6.24
0.944
0.42
1.06 0.02 - 4.03
1.51
0.72
1.70 0.07 - 7.04
!.02
1.00
0.60 0.21 - 3.2"/
1.66'
i.64
0.81 0.25 - 3.59
0.922.3.4 0.60
0.78 0.05 - 3.03
1.63j'4 1.08 1.26 0.42 - 5.69
!1.82''4 1.80
0.55 1.03 - 3.14
3.5 i "_
3.30
I. 18 1.92 - 7.36
Age
334
BMI
24.3
Years Worked 82']'4
Cigarettes/day 5
Drinks/day
1.2
Cholcllearol
207
HDL
57
Triglyceddel
102
AIk Phm
60
OGT
20
AST
24
ALT
23
'loud Billmbin 1.0
Direct BJlimbJn 0. I
BUN
I83
(_rcalJnil_
1.1
Glucose
85
34 23.8
5 0 1.0 202 57 102 61 16 24 22 1.0 0. I 17 J.1 87
7
23- 48
2."/. 19.2- 33.2
6
2-25
7
0 - 20
I
0- 4
39
145-308
13
32 - 85
49
34-221
15
.34-96
II
8-53
8
13 - 58
10
I I -71
0.3 0.6 - i .6
0.04 0.0 - 0.2
4
I I - 25
0.2 0.9- 1.5
19
31 - 131
37 24.9 121 5 I.I 216 52 125 60 24 24 22 !.0 0. I lit I.I 86
36
9
24.3 3.I
II
9
0
8
0.9
1.0
217
41
49
10
113
87
60
15
20
16
23
5
21
8
0.9
0.4
0. I , 0. I
18
4
I.I
0.2
88
16
21 - 56 19.0-34.7
2-20 0- 25 0- 4 148-295 38 -72 35-546 30- 113 8-89 16- 41 10-43 0.5 - 2.0 0.0 - 0.3 12 - 25 0.8- 1.7 49- !13
37 25.0 12' 4 0.9 212 54 140 59 21 22 22
1.0 0. I 20' 1.1 84
36 25.3 13 0 0.7 196 53 113 59 19 21 20 1.0 0. I 19 I.I 85
9 2.8 '7 6
i
0.9 41 12 124 15 I! 5 9 0.3 0.03 5 0.2 21
22- 55 17.5- 32.3
1-29 0- 20 0- 4 105-297 29 - 80 41-731 30-94 10-64 13 - 33 9-46 0.5 - 2.3 0.0 - 0.2 14 - 31 0.8-2.0 45- 168
39' 24.3 15i 7 I. I 226 57 130 61 26 23 20 1.0 0. i 19 !.1 80
39
8
28 - 55
24.7 3.0 17.8- 30.9
15
6
5-29
0
8
0- 25
0.7
1.2
0- 5
232
46
122-316
51
19
26- 119
105
75
42- 346
62
14
21-89
19
19
7-85
22
6
15 - 39
20
9
8-45
0.9
0.3
0.4 - 2.2
O.!
O.I 0.0 - 0.4
19
4
I I - 30
1.0
0.2
0.8 - 1.5
83 " 20
40- 120
IMaim hi Sillnificanlly difl_:renl(P < .05, I]onfer, mi (i)tUill) | te_) film! I_g IllCallI)f dlc I" quartile z Meau il IdlPllificantlydifferent (P < .05, Itoltfenoni (Dunn) ! lest) from die memt of Ihe 2" quartile 3Melm i| lilnificamtly different {P < .05, Bonferroni (Dunn) ! lest) from the nw.anof the 3'_ qnarlile 4Mean hi lieniflcanilv different (P < .05, Boiifffoni (I)tlnn) I lesl) frmn file mean of the 4kquartile
:'Table 5
,
Antwerp Male Production Employee (N = 150) Thyroid Results* by Quartileof SerumPFOS Distribution**
_.., Company P.',gc34 of 121
TSH ' T4 ' Free T4 T3 THBR I_TI
Quartile I (N = 37), Mean Median SD RMge
i .8
1.6
|. I 05 - 5.7
8.2
8.3
1.5 5.4 - I 1.5
1.2
1.1
0.2 0.9- 1.5
127
127
15 95 - 155
34
34
3
28 - 40
2.8
2.6 0.5 2. I - 4.2
Quartile2 (N = 38)
Mean Median SI)
Itan_e
2.0 2.0 0.9 0.7 - 5.5
8.5
8.6
1.4 6.6 - 12.0
1.1
I.I
0.1
0.9- 1.4
134
132 17
34
34
2
102 - 169 29 - 39
2.8
2.8 0.4
2. I - 4.0
Quartile3 l_l = 38) Mean Median SD Range
,2.0
1.7 - 1.1 0.8 - 6.1
8.2
8. I
1.4 5.0 - 11.5
I.I
1.1 0.2 0.6- 1.6
132
132
19 97 - IS0
34
34
3
29 - 43
2.7
2.7
0.4 1.9 - 3.9
Quarlilc 4 (N = 3"/)
Mean Median SD
RanBc
2.2
1.6 3.0 0.5 - 19.4
8. I
8.2
1.4 4.7 - 11.0
1.1
1.1 0.2 0.8- 1.6
136
137
22
98 - 185
34
34
2
29 - 41
2.7
2.7
0.4 1.6 - 3.6
*No slsnificandy different (P < .05, Bonfermni (Dunn) t test) mean valu_ **See Table 4'for r_.xumPFOS quartiledistribution
Table 6
Antweq_Male ProductionEmployee (N = 150) Hematology Results* by Quallile of Serum PFOS Distribution**
_ _. Company Page 35 of J21
IIC"r IIGB RBC W]BC Platelets
Quartile I (N = 37) Mean Median SD RanBe ,
46
46
3
41-53
15.5 15.4 0.8 14.0- 1"/.4
5.2
5.2
0.3 4.6 - 5.9
7;0
6.4
1.8 4.2 - I 1.4
,Quartile2 (N = 38)
Mean Median SD
Range
46
46
3
39-51
15.5 15.5 0.9 13.2- 18.1
5. I 5.2 0.3 4.4 - 5.9
7.3 7. I 1.8 4.4- 11.5
244
242
57 138 - 380 254 250 5 !
167 - 373
Quartile3 (N = 37) Mean Median SD Range
46
46
3
40-51
15.4 15.5 0.8 13.6- 17.3
5. I
5.1
0.3 4.7 - 5.9
7.6
7.4
1.6 5.2- I1.1
253
242 .73 106 - 427
Mean 46
Quartile4 (N = 37)
Median SD
Range
46 " 3
41-51
15.3
15.3 0.9 13.4- 17.1
5.0
5.0
0.3 4.0 - 5.8
7.2
6.9
2.1 4.5 - 15.6
249
247
55
!37 - 369
*No IdlPaificantlydifferent (P < .05. Bonferroni (Dunn) t teat) mean values **See Table 4 for aeaumPPOS quartile distribution
PlZOS PFOA TOP
Table 7
_,.. Company Page 36 of 121
Antwerp Male Non-Production Employee (N = 56) Fluorochemical, Demographic and Clinical Chemistry Results by Quartile of Serum PFOS Distribution
Mean
Quartile I (N = 14)
Median Sb
Range
0.133.4 0.13
0.05 0.05-0.20
Mean 0.274
Qnarlilc2 (N = 13)
Median SD
Range
0.28 0.03 0.21 -0.31
Mean
Quarlil 3 (N = 15)
Median SD
Range
0.401"4 0.41
Q.0$ 0.32-0.48
Mean
Quartile 4 (N = 14)
Median SD
Range
0.90 t'z'! 0.64
0.4'7 0.49- i.'/6
0.184 0.06 0.46 0.01- I.?8 0.194 0.15 0.13 0.05-0.51
0.3-/ 0.32
0.23 0.06-0.85
0.621"2 0.42 0.49 0.12- I.,/8
0.243.4 0.17 0..'14 0.06- 1.38
0.374 0.35 0.11 0.22-0.64
'0.604 0.54
0.19 0.3-/-0.96
1.22I'L_ 1.09 0.69 0.56-3.01
Age
40
36
13
23 - 58
BMI
24.6 2S.I
3.3" 19.9- 31.3
Ye,m| Worked 15
15
10
1-29
Ciprelles/day
I
0
5
0 - 20
Drinks/day
I.I
0.7
0.9 0.1 -2.9
Choleslerol 215
218
3-/ 140-293
HDL
55
54
II
40--/8
"rri$1yc_idrs, 94
-/8
39
45 - 177
Alk Plms
59
59
I,/
30 - 91
20
18
14
8-65
Ab'r
24
22
?
15- 3-/
ALT
24
21
10
12-41
Tozal Bilimbin
1.2
Direct Bilirubin 0.1
BUN
18
1.2
0.3 0..'i- 1.9
0.1
0.04 ILl -0.2
18
4
15-2"/
Creallnlue
1.2
1.2 0.2 1,0- I.'/
Gtucos
84
86
14
60- 104
41
42
6
31- 53
2S.4, 17
24.3 16
3.3 2 I.'-734.2
6
6-29
0
0
0
0- 0
t.0
0.'/
1.3
0.0-5.0
244
231
43
191-331
61
58
27
31 - 121
159
118 129
36 - 463
62
63
II
43 - 80
32
21
26
25
23
8
13- !11 15- 44
2-/
25
14
10-61
1.2
1.2
0.4
0.8-2.0
0.1
0.1
0.04 0.1 -0.2
22
19
15
14-,/!
I.$
I.I
1.3 0.9- 5.8
88
92
15
50- 107
38 26.1 13 4
I.I 219 53 120 61 26 25 24
0.9 0.1 18 1.2 8"/
40 25.I 13 0 I.! 223 49 99 61 16 22 21 0.9 0.1 18 1.2 95
9
25 - 56
40
3.5 2 I.I- 33.9
8
3-26
24.4 15
,/
0 - 20
2
0.9 0.1-3.4
!.3
39
15,/-2,/,/ 225
10
40--/7
54
6t
49 - 254
I I,/
18
30- 94
5-/
21
"/-80
25
,/
14- 38
24
ti
Ii -46
24
0.3
0.5- !.'7
I.I
0.1 0.0-0.3
0.1
4
13-25
19
0.2 0.8- 1.5
I.I
20
48- 114
91
41 24.2 15 0 0.9 231 5-/ 95 56 16 23 21
1.0 0.1 19 I.I 90
9
26 - 55
3.0 20.4- 30.I
9
2-27
4
0- I0
1.6 0.0-6.4
33
I,//8-2,/,/
18
31 - 100
-/2
3-/- 262
12
39 - 77
26
6- 107
8
16- 49
I!
12-44
0.3
0.7- 1.9
0.03 0.1 -0.2
3
14-24
0.2 0.8- 1.6
14
68 - 115
1Mean is adllnificanllydifferent(P < .05. Bmd'er,mi (Dunn) ! test)from;luen_an of Ihe I'_quaflile sMean is si|niflcanlly different(P < .05. Bonferroni(Dunn) 1lell) fromthe meanof Ih 2" quartile 3Me,anis significantly differenl(P < .05, Bonferroni(Dunn) 11_1)from Ihe meanof Ihc 3_ quartile 4 ,f.,., ;, ,;,,,,ltir.nn*lu ,llrferenl (P < .05. Bonfemmi (Dunn) I lest) from the mean of II_ 4d'quartile
Table 8
Antwerp Male Non-ProductionEmployees (N = 56) ThyroidResults* by Quartileof Serum PFOS Distribution**
..._ ComPany Page 37 of 121
TSH T4 Free T4 '1"3 THBR I_TI
Quartile I (N = 14_ Mean Median SD Ranp'
2. I
2.0
I. I 0.4 - 4.2
8.9
8.9
I. I 6.8 - 10.4
1.2
1.2
0.2 1.0- !.5
131
128
16 106- 164
33
34
2
30 - 36
2.9
3.0
0.3 2.3 - 3.4
Quartile 2 (N = 13)
Mean Median SD
RanRe
2.0
1.9 1.2 0.7 - 5.4
7.8
8.6
!.5
5.0 - 9.4
1.1
1.2 0.2
0.9- 1.5
120 118 12
35
33
4
103- 145 30 - 42
2.6
2.7
0.4 2.0 - 3.4
Quartile 3 (N = 15) Mean Median SD Range
;1.6 1.7 1.0 0.03 - 4.3
7.9 7.7
1.3 5.7 - 9.8
1.1 1.1
0.2
0.9 - 1.5
128
126 25
9[ - 161
35
34
3
28 - 41
2.7 2.7
0.4 2.1 - 3.5
Quartile 4 (N = 147
Mean Median SD
Ranse
2.0
1.6
1.4 1.0 - 6. I
7.9
7.7
1.9 4.2 - 11.4
i.1
1.2 0.2 0.9- 1.4
125
129
18
87- 147
35
34
2
32 - 41
2.7
2.7
0.6 1.7 - 3.7
NOsJpiflcamtly different (P < .05. Bonfexronj (Dean) t test) nwamvalues *See Table "/'forserum PFOS quartile distribution
"Fable 9
Antwerp Male Production Employee (N = 49) Hematology Results* by Quartile of Serum PFOS Distribution**
_.., Company Page 38 of 1:1
ItCT HGB RBC WBC PlateleAs
Quartile 1 {N = 14) Mean Median SD Ranl|
44
44
2 40 - 48
15.1 15.0
i.I 12.2- 17.0
5.1
5.1
0.2 4.8-5.6
6.6
6.4
1.3 5.1 - 10.1
228
226
23 183 - 258
Quartile2 {N :13)
Mean Median $1)
Range
47
47
2
42 - 49
15.6 15.5 0.7 14.3- 16.5
5.1
5.1
0.3
4.6-5.6
6.9
6.5
1.7 4.7- 10.7
267 270 49
206 - 353
Quartile3 (lq : 15) Mean Median SD Range
46
46
3
42 - 51
15.4
15.3
0.8 14.0- 17.0
5.1
,5.1
0.3 4.5-5.7
6.5
6.0
2.1 3.8- 11.0
225 221 i 53 129 - 335
Mean 45
Quartile4 (1'4= 14)
Median SD
Range
45
2
41 - 50
15.3
15.3
0.8 14.1- 17.1
5.0
5.0
0.3 4.7-5.5
6.5
6.4 1.3 4.9-9.6
234
234
39
172 - 306
*No significantly different (P < .05, Bonferroni (Dunn) t test) mean values **See Table 7 for serum PFOS quartile distribution
PIzOS PI_A TOP ABe
TuL
0
Antwerp Female Prodttclion* and Non-Production
Employee (N = 49)
Fiuorochemical,
Demographic and Clinical Chclnistry Rgsults by Quartile of Serum
PFOS
Mean
Quartile i (N = 12)
Median SD
Ranl|C
Quartile 2 (H = 12)
Mean Median SD
Ranae
Mean
Quartile 3 (N = ! 3)
Median SD
Range
0.116 0.06
0.01 0.114-0.08
0.09
0.09
0.01 0.08-0.10
0.11 0.11
0..01 0.10-0.14
...... J..... .' _, .,., 39 of 121
Mean
Quartile'4 (N = 12) Median SD
Range
0,26 i'2J 0.21
0.13 0.15-0.55
0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 - 0.08
0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 - 0.06
0.04 0.03
0.01 0.02- 0.07
0.202
0.09 0.31 0.02 - I. I I
0.08 0.07 0.02 0.05-0.12
0.09 O.l_J 0.01 0.07-0.11
0.12 0.11
0.02 0.09-0.15
0.40j_.3 0.26 0.34 0.13- 1.25
32
31
8
24 - .TAJ
36
34
9
24 - 52
38
36
5
3 ! - 48
3"/
36
6
29 - 52
BM! Yc_lWorked
23.8
23.5
7_
5
2.6 18.8-28.3 7" 0.8-22
21.9 21.8
13
12
2.5 :18.4-26.3
3
8
4-29
23.'/
21.3
151
14
4.6 17.3-32.3
6
9-28
21.8
22.0
1.7 18.3 -25.0
13
13
7
5-29
C|gKeUeadchy
I
0
3
O- I0
2
0
6
0-20
2
0
5
O- 15
2
0
4
O- 13
DdnllraFday
0.2 _ 0.1
0.3
O- 1,0
0,6
0.5
0.4
0.1 - !.3
0.6 a 0.4
0..4 0.0- 1.4
0,6
0.5
0.5
0.1 - 1.6
Cholesterol
205
195
30
I,i5 - 253
214
224
45
132- 274
208
19./
39
160- 302
207
197
32
!64 - 2./I
HDL
62
60
II
46- 85
71
"/2
19
46 - 121
68
64
18
43 - 104
"/2
6"/
16
53 - 104
'rriglyceddes
III
99
57
46-248
73
80
27
26- 112
98
93
43
46- 172
94
8"/
AIk lPhos
53
54
14
22- 70
44
48
14
.25 - 61
44
45
10
26- 61
42
42
AST
21
20
5
14 - 31
I./
17
5
I ! -2"/
18
17
6
9 -26
I./
15
ALl'
14
12
./
8-35
12
12
2
8- 17
IS
13
./
6-34
II
II
GGT
12
I0
8
3 - 32
Ii
II
5
2 - 19
14
10
10
7- 41
10
10
Total Blllmbin
0.8
0.7
0.2 0.5 - 1.2
1.0
1.0
0.3
0.5- 1.7
0.8 0.8
0.3
0.3 - 1.3
0.7
0.7
Dbr,cl Billmbin O.I
O.I
0.07 0.0 - 0.2
0. I
0. I
0.09 1)I. - 0.4
0. I O.I
0.06 0.0 - 0.2
O.I
0. I
BUN
123"4 12
2
9-16
15
15
3
11-23
18_
19
4
9-22
16t
16
CreaUnlna
0.9
0.9
0.2 0.6- I. I
0.9
0.9
0.2
0.7 - !.3
1.0 1.0
0.2
0.7- 1.4
1.0
1.0
Glucose
75
./6
16
38-98
86
*Number of Female employees by produclioncalegmy by quartile
QI
Q2
Q3
Q4
Produ_m
3
I
0
2
Non-Produ_ion
9
II
13
I0
90
12
65 - 101
89
91
II
65- 105
88
90
*Mean is significlmlJy different (P < .05. Bonfermnl (Dunn) t tat) from the mean of Ihe I" quarlile 2 Mean is significantly different (P < .05. Bonferroni (Duim) t test) from the mean of the 2"*quimile 3 Mean is significantly different (P < .05, Bonfenoni (Dunn) t teit) from the mean of the 3atquarlile * Mean is significantly different (P < .05, BonfeiToni(Dunn) I lest) from the mean oflhe 4" quarlile
44 Ii 6 3 4 0.2 0.0 3 O.I 17
32- !./I 20- 59 12 - 33 7- 18 5 - 23 0.3 - 1.2 0. I - 0. I 13-23 0.8 - !.2 49- 117
r'
TSH ; 2"4
Fn_T4 2'3 THBR ]PTI
i
;Table I I
AntwerpFemaleProductionandNon-ProductionEmployee(N =49) ThyroidResulls*by Quartileof ScramPPOSDistribution**
".. Company Page 40 of 1.!.1
Qum,c1(N.. 12)
Mm M_xiilm -qD Rmap
2.0
1.9
1.4 0.03 - 4.9
10.7 11.3 2.2 6.6 - 13.8
I.I
I.I
0.1 0.8- 1.3-
157 164 29 106- 191
27
27
5
19 - 34
2.8 2.9 0.5 2.I - 3.6
Q,mtit2e(N= 12)
Mean Median Sb
Rang
2A
2.4
1.0 0.6 - 4. !
9.7
9.7
1.8 6.9 - 12.3 -
1.1
1.2 0.1 0.9- 1.3
128 134 22
98- 163
31
31
4
25 - 36
2.9 3.0 0.4 2.3 - 3.6
Q,mi_ 3(N= l_)
Mean Median SD RanBc
,2.2 1.8 - 1.8 0.03 - 6.7
10.5 10.7 3.6 4.6- 18.3
1.4 1.1
1.0 0.7-4.6
159
145 66
81-345
31
32
7
22 - 46
3.2 2.9
1.6 1.8- 8.4
Quart,4e(N= 12)
.
Mean Median SD
Range
2.6
2.0
!.6 !.0 - 6.5
10.0
9.8
2.3 63 - 13.3-
1.0
1.0 0.1 0.9- 1.2 -
144
135
34 109-228,
29
29
4
24 - 35.
2.8
2.7 0.4 2.2 - 3.4,
*No siplflr.a,ntly different (P < .05, Bonfeamni (Duma)t lem) racan values **So8 Table l0 for mum PPOS quartiledistribution
Table 12
Antwerp Female Production and Non-Production Employee (N = 49) Hematology Results* by Quartile of Serum PFOS Distribution**
._M Company Page 41 of 121
HCT HGB RBC WBC Plateleta
Quartile I (hi = 12) Mean Median SD Range
40
42
4
29-43
.,
Quartile 2 (N = 12)
Mean Median SI)
Range
41
41
3
37 -45
13.3 13.6
4.6
4.7
1.5 9.4- 14.9 0.4 3.7 - 5. I
13.5 13.5 0.7 12.5- 15.0 4.5 4.5 0.3 4. I - 5. i
7.'/ 7.4
1.9 4.8 - 10.1
6.3
6.0
1.7 3.9 - 9.3
261
246
50
189 - 379 275 282 49
211 - 374
Quartile 3 (N = 13) Mean Median SD Range
40
41
2
35 -44
13.3
13.3 0.8 11.7- 14.8
4.5
4.5
0.2 4.2 - 5.0
7.3
7.2
!.4 5.4 - 9.5
277
251
68 202 -426
Quartile 4 (i'4= 12)
Mean Median SD
RanBe
41
41
2
38 -46
13.5
13.6
0.8 12.5- 15.2
4.5
4.5
0.3 4.2 - 5. l
6.5
6.3
1.3 4.4 - 9.4
269
260
64
181 - 406
*No significantly different (P < .05, Bonferroni (Dunn) t test) mean values **See Table 10 for serum PF:OSquartiledislribution
/J
-.
:
i
PFOS PFOA TOI _ Age BMi
Table 13
Comnp-',J_y Page 42 of 121
DecaturMale ProductionEmployee(N = 161) lquoruchcnlicalD, emographicandClinicalChemistryResultsby Quartileof ScramPFOSDistribution
Mean 0.55TM
Qu.a_ile ! (N ,, 40) Median Sb
itanBe
0.55 0.16 0.11 -0.'/5
Mean 1.01TM
Quarlile 2 (N : 40)"
Median SD
Range
0.99 0.18 0.76- 1.30
Mean
Qumllc 3 (N'_ 41) Median SD
Range
1.74TM 1.74 0.28 !.32-2.29
Mean 3.22t'2's
Qumile 4 (N : 40) Median SD
RanBc
3.03 1.22 2.31 - 10.06
1.24)' 1.24 0.6/ 0.06-2.72
1.824
1.53 1.05 0.35-4.61
2.42_'4 2.3/
1.16 0.76-'7.48
3.88''z_
3.68
1.86 1.52- 12.70
1.34TM 1.34 0.52 0.14-2.52
2.20TM 2.04 0.79 0.89-4.22
3.43la'4 3.32
1.06 !.75-6.61
5.75j'_') 5.31 I.'/7 3.00-12.23
43
44
9
26-63
42
41
9
26-61
42
43
8
28-57
41
41
10
27-60
29.0
28. I
3.7" 24.5 - 37.6 28A
27.3
5.2 1"/.2- 50. I
29.9 ' 29.2
5.0
22.6 - 45.5
28.3
28.3
4.0 19.9- 39.2
YeauraWodced 12
4
13
2-38
Cigarettes/day 8
0
13
0- 40
Drinks/day
0.2
0
11.3
0- I
Choleiteml
214
220
43
121-296
HDL
42
41
8
29 - 59
13
5
12
2-34
5
0
I0
0 - 30
0.1
0
0.2
0- I
224
219
42
155-308
45
44
8
33 - 75
17
22
12
2-38
9
0
13
O- 40
0.1
0
0.2
0- I
213
208
44
147'384
43
42
11
29 - 70
16
14
II
3-38
4
0
9
0- 30
0.1
0
0.2
0.0- 1.0
216
210
39
160-319
43
43
8
28 - 64
Triglyceridel 232
19B
139
32 - 633
165
137
I01
32 - 550
202
16/
138
44 - 792
195
175
128
39 - 796
AIk Phos
76
73
20
44 - 142
74
69
22
39 - 160
78
75
22
39- 139
75
71
20
44- 126
GGT
33
AST
26
ALl"
33 *
Total Bilirubin 0.7
28
22
7 - 144
29
23"
17
I0 - 87
25
"/
16 - 42
26
25
7
15 - 51
31
12
12-_3
324
28
17
6- 103
0.7
0.2 0.3 - i.5
0.8
0.8
0.2
0.4- 1.2
29
27
25
24
334
31
0.7
0.7
13
11 - 80
7
7 - 39
12
10-58
0.2
0.4- I. I
34 29 441._) 0.7
30
16
26
I!
37
23
0.7
0.2
10 - 71 15 - 69 12-99 0.4- 1.3
Direct Bilimbin 0. I
BUN
15
Ctltlinlne
I.I
Glucose
97
0. I
0. I 0.0 - 0.2
0. I
0. I
0. I
0.0- 0.7
0. I
0. I
.05
0.0- 0.2
0. I
15
5
9-33
15
15
4
8 -30
15
14
3
8-23
15
,I.I
0.2 0.7- 1.6
I.!
1.1
0.2
0.8- i.7
1.4
1.0
2.2
0.8- 15.0
1.0
91
19
75- 184
93
93
l0
75- 113
99
93
39
74-381
92
0. I
0. I 0.0- 0.6
15
5
6-26
I.I
0.2
0.8- !.4
90
12
72 - 129
t Mean is silgnlficantly different (P < .05. Bonferroni (Dunn) t teat) from the mean of the I" quartile a Mean Is significantly different (P < .05, Bonfemmi (Dum0 t tea0 from the mean of the 2" quartile ) Mean 1| silgnlficantly different (P < .05. Bonfenoni (Donn) I lelt) flora Ihe ilgan of the 3ntquartile 4 Mean Is significantly different (P < .05. Bonfem)ni (Dunn) t test) from the mean of the 4 d*quartile
Table 14
Decatur Male Production Employee (N = 161)
Thyroid Results* by Quartileof Serum PFOS Distribution**
,ompany Page 43 of 121
TSH '1'4 l_r_ T4 '!"3 TIIBR FTI
QmuliS:I {N ,,40) Mean Median SD Range
4.5
2.4 10.4 0.5 - 65.3
7.9 8.2 1.3, 4.6 - 10.7
1.0 1.0 0.1 0.6- 1.3
122
1IS
19 96 - 186
31
31
2,4
2.4
3
24-38
0.3 1.2- 3.0
Quartil2e_N = 40) ......
Qmmil 3 Q_I=41)
Mean Median SD
Range
Mnn Median SD Range
2A
1.8 2.9 0,2 - 18.8
:2.4 2.1
1.5 0.8 - 8,6
8.5 8.5 1.5 3,3 - 1i.4
8.5 8.2
1.7 4.7 - 12.9
i.1
!.1
0.2 0.4- 1.4
I.I 1.1 0.2 03- 1.5
124
122 19
93 - 196
127
119 24
87 - 172
30
30
2
26-37
2.5
2.5
0.5
1.0 - 3.4
31
31 ,3
2.6 2.5
0.5
26-37 1.5 - 4.1
Quartil4e(N = 40)
Mean Median $D
Ranlce
3.0
2.4
3A 0,8 - 21.5
8.5
8.4 1.2 5.1 - 11.4
l.l
1.0 0.1 0.8- 1.3
135
136
23
97 - 190
30
30
3
25-38
2.5
2.4 ,, 0.4 1.9 - 3.4
*No slliniflcq_y diffee=nt (P < .05, Bonfemmi (Dunn) t m0 mean values **San Table 13/'ix mum _ quartiledlmibution
"Fable 15
Decatur Male Production Employee (N = 161) Hematology Results* by Quartile of Serum PFOS Distribution**
_ . Company Page 44 of 121
HCT HOB RBC WBC Phlteletl
Quartile i (N.= 40) Me,an Median SD Ransc
45
45
2.7 39-51
15.2 15.3
4.9
5.0
0.9 13.3- 17.2 0.3 4.0 - 5.5
6.1
6.0
1.3 4.3 - 10.2
206
200
45 126 - 332
Quarlile 2 (N = 40)
Mrain Median SD
Ranjsc
45
45
2.2
40-50
15.1 15.2
5.0
5.0
0.8 13.4- 17.3 0.3 4. I - 5.6
6.2
5.9
1.6 3.3 - 10.2
224 222 42
146 --353
Quartile3 (N = 41) Mean Median SD Range
45
45
2.9 38-52
15.2
15.1
1.0 12.1 - 17.5
5.2
5.0
1.8 4.1 - 16.0
6.4
5.9
1.8 4.1 - 11.6
223
220
47 122 - 328
Mean 45
Quartile 4 (N = 40)
Median SD
Ranl_e
45
2.4
39-50
15.2
15.1
0.8 12.9- 16.6
5.0
5.0 , 0.4 3.8 - 5.9
6.5
6.3
1.8 3.8 - 13.5
2!6
213
46
132 - 307
*No significanlly different (P < .05, Bonfermni (Dunn) t lest) mean values **See Table 13 for serum PPOS quartile dislfibulion
3M Company Page 45 of 121
Table 16
/
(
Decatur Male Production Employee (N = 161)
Urinalysis Results by Quartile of Serum PFOS Distribution*
Albumin Blood Sugar
Quartile I N (%) 1 (3) 3 (8)
3 (8)
Quartile 2 N (%) 2 (6) 4 (10)
I (3)
Quartile 3 N (%) 1 (3) 4 (10)
2 (1.2)
Quartile N (%) 1 (3) 1 (3)
0 (0)
Number of Employees: Q1 = 40; Q2 = 40; Q3 = 41; Q4 = 40 *See Table 13 for serum PFOS quartile distribution
/
-
_,
/
/
r
'
/
Table 17
PP(_
Decatur Male Non-Production Employee (N = 54) Clinical Chemistry Results by Quartile of Serum PFOS Distribution
MeM
Qumrllle I {N - 13) .....
Mediu SD
R;mllc
0.19_'4 0.20 0.08 0.06-0.29
{_arlile 2 i_N= 14)
Mean Mdiml Sb
RamB
0.394 0.39 0.06 0.32-0.49
Mean
(_ianile 3 (N -,14} Media. SD
RJmee
0.711_I0".470 0.16 0.50-0.98
PPOA
0.344 0.21 0.84 0.04 -2.10
0.344 0.30 0.15 0.16-0.61
0.544 0.48
0[28 0.19- !.25
TOP
0.42)'4 0.37 0.46 0.08- 1.90
0.644 0.60 , 0.21 0.40- 1.12 !0.981'4 0.96 " 0.24 0.64- 1.39
Age BM!
42
44
10
27-59
42
36
13
28-60
48
51
8
30-36
29.$
27.4
6:0 22.7 - 40.8
26.3
2S.5
4.0
21.7 - 35.4
29. I
28.7
3.4
25.5 - 37.3
Yeats Wodmd 15.1
18.7
11.9 0.8- 37.9
19.6
17.3
13.8
'2.2 - 38.5
24.3
28.6
11.6 2.3 - 34.2
CipleUeMday
5
0
Ddnkl/day
0.2
0
207
199
ItDL,
46
40
13
0-40
5
0
11
0-40
0.3
0 - 0.8
0.3
0
0.7
0 - 2.0
45
158- 305
204
192
42
153 - 278
14
32 - 82
49
46
14
35- 80
2
0
8
t
0.2
0
(J.s
0-30 0 - 1.6
203
197
48
144- 281
43
40
8
34 - 59
TriBiyt::eddel 157
AIk Phos
39
185
63
38 - 2.q4
129
96
64
59-241
61
15
26-79
62
62
17
: 39-98
161
154
65
62-284
72
72
15
48-105
GOT
22
AST
25
ALl"
28
Tolal IllUmldn 0.8
Bllimbin 0. I
BUN
14
+_teallalM
1.0
21 22 23
0.8 0. I 13 " 1.0
8 7 16 0.2 0.07 3 0.1
II -35 16 - 42 I $ - 74 0.S - 1,0 0.0 - 0.2 8-22 0.9- 1.2
36
25
29
13- !19
29
29
28
27
I0
16 - 48
27
25
33
32
20
14 - 91
35
33
0.8
0.8
0.2
0.5- 1.0 0.8
0.'/
0. I
0. I
0.03
0. I - 0.2
0. I
O.I
14
14
3
10- 18
15
15
1.0
I,I
0.1
0.8- I.I
I.I
I.i
8
15-41
6
16 - 39
12
24 - 66
0.3
0.4-1.4
0.06
0.0- 0.2
5
8-24
0.2
0.7- 1.4
Ohtool
88
119
8
76 - 99
89
89
6
_'/9- 100
94
92
10
70- 112
i Moan is allpdflcanlly different (P .05, Uonfe,oai (Dunn) I test) from the ruefulof the Iu q,;artile
2 Mum il IdpIficanily different (P < .0S, Bonfe,oni (Dunn) 1lOSt)from Ihe mean of the 2 "t quartile
SMall JlIJlniflr, anlJydjffetenl (P < .0S, Bonfenoni (Dana) t test) from the meatl of Ihe 3" quartile
"
.........
,,n . n rt,,,,,,,..,,,_nIF;hmnn!_its0 from IhCmean of Ihc 4 d'quartile
_o_.Compaqy Page 46 of 121
Mean
Quartile 4 (N = 13)
Median SD
R_c
1.66i'_] 1.19 0.73 1.00-2.95
1.17t'2") 1.07 0.60 0.35 -2.05
2.29ia'3 1.88 0.91 1.13-3.74
49
51
6
35-56
28.7
29.4
2.3
24 - 32
27.81
31.8 8.6 4,5 - 35.4
8
0
15
0-40
0. I
0
0.2
0 - 0.8
222
233
42
! 39 - 297
43
42
12
24 -'/3
232
122
I'/3
69 - 512
75
73
15
52-104
29
23
22
9-89
22
23
5
14 - 29
28
27
6
20- 4 I
0.8
0.8
0.2
0.4 - I.!
0. I
0. I
0.07 0. I - 0.3
16
14
4
12-22
I.I
1.1
0.1
1.0- 1.3
103
91
26
83 - 166
t
Table 18
_ompany Page 47 of 121
Decatur Male Non-Production Employee (N = 54) Thyroid Results by Quartile of Serum PFOS Distribution**
TSH T4 l_reeT4 1'3 THIBR Fl'I
Qumilet(N=13) M_n Median $D
2.1
1.8
1.0
Kan_ 0.8-4.2
9.1
9.1
1.2 6.9-103
I.I
1.1 0.1 0.1-1.3
124
129
17 _J- 150
30
30
2
29-34
2.7 2.8 0.4 2.0-3.4
Q_rtilc2(N=14) M_n M_ian SD
Ran_
2.1
1.9 1.3 0.03-5.2
8.2 7.9
1.6 6.2-10.7
1.1
l.I
0.1 0.9-1.3
I_
112 23
_- 180
31
31
3
25-35
2.4 2.6 0.4 1.8-3.2
Quanil3(N=14)
Mean M_i_
SD Ran_
3.0
2.0 .* 2_
1.6-11.8
8.0 8.2 1.0 1.1
!.3 6.3-10.2 0.1 0.8-1.2
117
!14
23
86- 164
31
31
3
26-35
2.4 2.5 0.5 l.?-3.1
Qua_ile'4(N=13)
Mean Median SD
Ra._
1.6
1.5
0.9 0.4-3.6
8.7
a.7
1.2 7.0-10.9
1.2
i.2
0.1 _9-1.4
118
12l
13
91 - 136
30
31
3
25 -36
2.6
2.5 0.4 2.0-3.2
*NO 818nifieanllydiffere_ (P < .05, Boafcn'oni(Dunn) t test)meanvalues *eS_ Table_7 tarserumPI_S quartidlieslribulio.
/
Table 19
Decatur Male Non-Production Employee (N = 54) Hematology Results* by Quartile of Serum PFOS Distribution**
.... Company Page 48 of !21
Hc"r HOB RBC WBC Ph_lUl
Quarlile I (N -- 13) Mean Median SD Range
45
45
3
38-51
15.2 15.4
5.0
5.0
1.2 12.0- 16.9 0.3 4.7 - 5.5
6.1
5.7
2.2 4.1 - 13.1
245
223
62
134-337
Quartile 2 (N = 14)
M_n Median SD
Range
45
45
.1
41-53
15.4 15.0 I.I I,i.2- 17.8
5.6
4.9
2.8 4.5 - 15.1
6.0
6.1
1.6 3.0-8.2
219 217 30
172-266
Quartile 3 (H =, 14) Mean Median SD RanBe
44
45
3
41 -49
14.9
15.0
0.8 13.6- 16.7
4.8
4.8
0.3 4.3 - 5.3
6.0
5.7
l.l 4A-8.6
230
206
58 149-361
Quartile4 (14= 13)
Mean Median SD
Range
45
45
!
43 -49
15.0
15.1
0.5 14.0- 16.0
5. I
5. !
0.3 4.6 - 5.5
6.4
6.0
1.6 4.4-9.8
212
203
34
167- 258
*No II|niflcantly different (P < .05, Bonfenoni (Dunn) t test) mean values **._e Table 17 for z-,rumPFOSquartile diaeribudon
t
Table 20
Decatur Male Non-Production Employee CN= 54) Urinalysis Results by Quartile of Serum PFOS Distribution*
3M Compan: Page 49 of 121
Albumin Blood Sugar
Quartile I N (%) 0 (0)
2 (15) o (o)
Quartile 2 N (%) 0 (0)
0 (0) o (o)
Quartile 3 N (%) 0 (0)
2 (15) o (o)
Quartile 4 N (k) 1 (8)
0 (0) o (o)
Number of Employees: QI = 13; Q2 =14; Q3 = 14; (24 = 13 *See Table 17 for serum PFOS quartile distribution
)'
-o
..,
7'
PFOS PFOA
"Fable21
Decatur Female Productionand Non-Production Employee (N = 48) Clinical Chemistry Resulls by Quartile of Senam PFOS Distribution
Mean 0.203,4
Qtiarlile I (N = 121
Median SI)
I,tu.f.e
0.20
0.08 0.06-O.31
Quu,lil2 (N = 12)
Mean Median .',I;)
RanEe,
0.493.4 O.SO O.13 0.32 -0.70
, Mean
Quartile3 {N = 121
Median SD
Rani]e
0.99 ='2"40.92
0.16 0.77 - 1.30
0.40 _'4 0.28
0.47 0.08 - 1.81
0.783'= 0.60 0.92 0.10 - 3.50
1.77 la 1.28
I. 17 0.25 - 4.00
TOF Age BMI
0.48 _.4 36 27.5
0.34 36 27.4
0.38 0.21 - 1.60
8
2.'i- 47
6.8 21.5 - 45.3
1.024 43 25,9
0.94 43 25.5
0.72 II 5.4
0.33 - 3.02 26 - 58
20.0 - 39.3
2-14m'4 1.83
44
43
27.5
28.2
0.88 0.86 - 3.54
6
32 - 50
4.5
20.3 - 33.6
Yean=WoAed II
7
10
2-27
14
13
II
2-27
12
6
10
4-32
Cigmettes/day 2
0
5
0 - 15
3
0
9
0 - 30
4
0
9
0 - 30
Drinks/day
0.0
Cholesterol
184
0
0.1 0.0-0.3
170
40
138-266
0.1
0.0
0.2
202
210
31
0.0- 1.0 139-262
0.0
0
0.1
0.0- 0.1
206
200
43
161-313
HDL
55
56
II
33-69
60
58
12
40-81
66
66
12
50-91
Triglycerides 96
AJk Phos
59
100
49
24 - 198
109
89
58
61
16
27-81
63
5g
Ig
41 - 233 34-91
186
94
68
69
281
42 - 1049
22
41 - 100
GGT AST ALl"
14
15
6
6-26
14
13
6
7-30
28
17
27
10-97
22
21
8
13 -43
18
18
5
I 1-26
21
19
9
7 -39
20
16
13
9 - 58
18
17
7
I 1 - 36
22
17
12
6 - 47
Total Bilirubin 0.6
0.6
0.2 0.2 - 0.9
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.3 - 1.0
0.6
0.5
0. !
0.4 - 0.8
Direct Bilimbin 0.1
BUN
12
0.1
0.1 0.0-0.2
13
4
5-20
03
0.1
0.05 0.0-0.1
12
13
3
8- 17
0.1
0.1
13
13
0.04
0.0-0.1
4
6-23
Creatinine
0.8
0.8
0.2 0.6- I.I
0.8
0.8
0.1
0.7- 1.2
0.9
0.9
0.2
0.6- 1.2
Glucose
89
90
IS
73- 125
86
86
9
72- 110
82
85
8
67-90
.,,! Company
PageSOofi2t
Mean
Qoartile 4 (N = 12)
Median SD
Range
2.04 _'z'3 1.80 0.78 1.38 - 3.62
1.98la
I..cut 1.27 0.85 - 5.4 I
3.391.2J 2.76
44
46
29.9
27.8
1.65 1.99 - 7.8 I
7
30 - $2
6.8 21.0 - 41.5
15
17
10
3-32
13
5
15
0 - 40
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0-0.3
209
206
42
129- 287
55
55
12
36-78
142
113
94
46 - 3')4
70
70
15
44-95
16
13
9
6-30
18
17
5
I I - 30
17
14
6
10 - 29
0.5
0.5
0. ! 0.3 - 0.7
0.1
0.1
0.05 0.0-0.1
12
13
5
I - 18
0.9
0.8
0.1
0.7 - I.I
92
89
13
78 - 123
*Number of Female emldoyees by production category by quartile
Production
_QI
Q2
3
I
Q3 _
Q4
0
2
t Mean is significantly different (P < .05, Bonferroni (Dunn) t tesl) from Ihe mean of the I" quartile 2Mean is significantly difl_renI (P < .05, Bonfcrroni (l')ul|n) t lesl) fronl lEe mean of the 2*'=qu,trlile _tMean is significantly difi_rent (P < .05, Bmd_:rmni(Dunn) t test) from tile ineali of the 3'aquartile 4Mean is significantly different (P < .05, Bonferroni (Dunn) t lest) from Ihe mean of the 4't'quartile
L
Table 22
Decatur Female Produclion and Non-Production Employee (N = 48) Thyroid Resulls* by Quartile of Serum PFOS Distribution**
TSH "!"4 FreeT4 3"3 THBR FTI
Quanilel(N=12) Mean M_ian SD
R_p _;'
2.0
2.0
1.3 0.03-4.8
10n
9.8
2.7 6.5-15.1
1.0 I.I
0.1" 0.9-1.3
132
126
26
i(_- 188
28
29
3
24 -34
2.7
2.7
0.6 1.7-3.8
Quarlilc2(N =12)
M_n M_ian Si)
Ran_
2.6
2.2
1.3 0.7-4.6
9.0
8.9 2.0 5,8-12.2
1.1
1.0 _1
0.9-1.3
127 120 29
86 - 176
28
28
3
23- 36
2.5
2.5 0.5
1.7-3.1
*No significantly different (P < .05, Bonferroni (Dunn) t test) nw.anvalues **See Table 21 for serum PFOS quartiledistribution
,.Quarlile3)N=12 ) , Mean M_ian SD Ran_
,2.4 2.1
1.2 1.0-5.2
9.2 8.9
1.7 6.7-11.9
1.0 1.0
0.1
0.7-1.1
126
119 26
91 - I_
26
26
4
22 - 32
2.3 2.4
0.4
1.6-2.7
..,f Company Page 51 of 12 [
Quaffilc4(N =!2)
Mean M_ian SD
RanBe
2.2
2.2
0.6 1.4-3.6
9.1
8.4 2.5 5.8-14.2
1.0
1.0 0.1 0.8-1.2
127
122
32
86 - 196
28
28
4
18- 32
2.4
2.4
0.4 1.8-3.0
/_
Table 23
Decatur Female Production and Non-Production Employe_ (I'4= 48) Hematology Results by Quartile of Serum PFOS Distribution*
,l Company Page 52 of 12!
HCT HGB RBC WBC Platelets
Quartile! (N = 12)
Mean Median SD
RanBe
38
38
12.6
12.7
3
.31 - 43
1.2 9.9- 14.4
4.3
4.3
0.3 3.8 - 4.8
6.7
6.3
2.0 4.2 - ! 1.7
2803
260
68
212- 450
Quartile 2 (N = 12)
Mean Median SD
Ranse
40
40
13.3 13.3
2
36 - 43
0.6 12.3- 14.5
4.3
4.3
0.3
3.7 - 4.8
6.6
6.5
1.9 4.3 - 10.4
228
216
42
185 -302
Quartile3 (N = 12)
Mean Median SD Ranse
3.9
39
l
36 - 41
12.9
12.8
0.5 12.0- 13.8
4.4
4.3
0.3 3.9 - 5.0
5.9
6.2
1.7 2.8 - 8.4
209'
206
34
147 -272
Mean
Quartile 4 (N = 12)
Median SD
Ransc
40
40
4
34 - 49
13.4
13.4
1.4 11.3- 16.2
4.3
4.4
0.4
3.9 - 5.0
7.6
7.5
1.9 4.2 - 10.4
258
254
55
159 - 339
*See Table 21 fi)r serum PFOS quartile distribution t Mean is significantly different (P < .05, Bonferroni (Dunn) t lest) from the reean of the i" quartile a Mean is significantly different (P < .05, Breffcrroni (Dunn) t test) from the ntean of the 2-' quartile 3 Mean is significantly different (P < .05, Bonferroni (Dunn) t test) from the mean of the 3_dquartile 4 Mean is significantly different (P < .05, Bonferroni (Dram) t teat)from the mean of ate 4" quartile
Table 24
Decatur Female Production and Non-Production Employee (N = 48) Urinalysis Results by Quartile of Serum PFOS Distribution*
:--_ Company P"___53 of 121
Albumin Blood
Sugar
- Quartile 1
N(_)
0 (0)
2 (17)
0 (0)
Quartile 2
N(_)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Quartile 3
N(_)
2 (17)
3 (25)
0 (0)
Quartile 4
N(_)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0) .
Number of _mployees: Q1 = 12; Q2 = 12; Q3 - 12; Q4 = 12 *See Table 21 for serum PFOS quartile distribution
k
/
Table z3""
Number of Participants (Percent in Parenthesis) Stratified by Antwerp or Decatur Employee Populations Who Had Above Reference Range Values for Hepatic Clinical Chemistry Tests by Quartile of Serum PFOS Distribution
l.iiilJ,*i*)'
o4 54 of 121
Antwer 0
Alkaline I_Jsphalase
QI
Q2
Q3
(,14
Mik 15rodm:liona O(O) 0(0) O(O) U(O)
Muk Non-Productiona 0 (0)
_nulc Productim_ . and Nowl_nod_mitm
0 (01
0 (O) 0 (0)
0 (0) 0 (0)
0 (01 O (01
Deealur
Male Pmdaclion*
I(3) 2(6)
MaleNon-PnxhJ_iJ_ s O(0} O(0)
PcmaleProduclim* and Nea-Pmduc_tim
0 (0)
0 (0)
2(6) O(O) i) (0)
I(31 O(O) 0 (0)
A_'I"
QI
02
03
Q4
I(31 0(01 0(0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
0(01 I (7) 0 (0)
0(0) I(3) 0(01 4(101
0(0) 2(14) 0(0)
0(0)
! (8) 0 (01 0 (01 0 (01
ALT
QI
Q2
Q3
Q4
I(31 0 (01 0 (0)
0(01 I (8) 0 (0)
0(01 0 (01 0 (0)
0(01 0 (0) 0 (0)
GOT
Total Lives"I"-,nel*
Qi
Q2
Q3
Q4 .
QI
Q2
Q3
Q4
I(3) I (7) 0 (0)
I(3) I (8) 0 (0)
2(5) 4(II) 2 (13) I (7) 0 (0) 0 (0)
3(j)t 2 (14) 0 (0)
$(131 2 ( 151 J (8)
4(II) 3 (201 0 (0)
.5(14 I (81 0 (11)
3(R) I (8) I (8)
5(131 3(I_) 11(281 I (7) 2(14) 0(01 0 (01 0 (0) 0 (01
4(101 3(8) 2(6) 6(151
0(0)
3(21) 0(0) I (8)
0 (01 0 (0) 2 (1"7) 0 (0)
"7(|8) 8(20)
I (8) 5 (36)
I (8)
0 (Q)
7(18) 14(35
2(14)
I (8)
2 07)
0 (0)
*Include Alkaline Phoqlmte, AST, ALT, GOT, Total and Din:or Bilimbin
I See Table 4 for serum PFOS quartile distribution
2 Sec Table 7 for serum PVOS quartile distribution
) See Table !0 for serum PFOS quartile distribution
4 See Table 13 for serum PFOS qua,tile distribution
".
s See Table 17 for serum PFOS quartile distribution
6 See Table 21 for serum PFOS quartile distribution
J
.,M Company
Table 26
Page55of 121
Antwerp and Decatur Male Production and Non-Production* (N = 421) Fluorochemical, Demographic and Clinical Chemistry Results by Quartile of ScrumPFOS Distribution
PFOS PFOA TOF Age BMI
Mean
Qumll I (N = 105)
Median SI)
Range
0.27TM 0.29 0.11 0.04-0.42
0.54TM 0.25 0.'/7 0.01-4.03
0.62TM 0.43 0.58 0.05-3.03
38 )
36
10
23- 60
25.8
25.1
4.0 19.2- 40.8
Year|Worked 12_
II
10
1-38
C'issrelles/day 4
0
9
0-40
I_rinkgdly
0.9 ).+
0.7
1.0
0- 5
Cholesleml 214.
HDL
54
209
41
140-331
53
15
31 - 121
Triglycerides 1314
104
95
32-527
AlE Phos
61''4 62
16
26-98
(lOT
24
20
16
7- III
AST
25
24
8
13-58
ALl["
264
23
13
10-91
TotalBilJmbin 1.0).4. 0.9 0.3 0.5- 2.0
Direcl Bilimbin 0.1
0,1
0.1 0.0-0.3
]BUN
18
I'/
7
8-71
Crem, inl_
1.2
I.!
0.$ 0.8- 5.8
Glucose
87
89
16
31 - 131
Mean
Quarlile2 (N = 10.5)
Median SI)
Range
0.60t').+ 0.59 0.12 0.43-0.81
1.21_'+ 0.86
1,19 0.06-7.04
1.40TM 1.14 0.89 0.38-5.69
41
40
10
21 - 63
26.9
26.3
4.0
19.0- 37.3
15
11
12
5
0
10
0.6
0.3
0.9
214
217
43
47
45
!I
155
130 102
67
66
18
29
22
22
25
24
6
28
26
II
0.9
0.8 0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
17 . 17
4
I.I
I.I
0.2
2-38 0-40 0-4 121 -308 29 - 80 35-633 30- 142 7 - 144 16-49 10-63 0.3- 2.0 0.0-0.7 9-30 0.7- 1.7
91
90
17
_9- 184
Mean
Quartile3 (N = 106)
Median SD
Ranlle
1.191"2"4t.17
0.24 0.82- 1.68
'1.45I'+ !.20
1.10 0.12-7.48
2.12''1'4 1.88 0.8"/ 0.98-6.61
421
43
9
22 - 61
27.3
26.7
4.5
17_ - 50. I
16t
16
,II
1-38
6
0
10
0.5 a 0. I
0.9
0-40 0- 6
215
216
39
105 -303
48
46
13
24 - 100
169
134
123 32-731
69t
67
21
30- 160
26
23
15
6 - 89
24
24
7
7-51
28
26
14
6- 103
0.8_ 0.8
0.1
O.1
17
16
1.3
I.I
0.3" 0.4- 2.0
0.1
0.0-0.3
$
8-31
1.4 0.8- 15.0
91
91
17
45- 168
Mean
qu_ilc 4 <N: 105)
Median SD
Rangc
2.691'2") 2.46
1.09 1.69- 10.06
2.'/0_'2") 2.43
1.63 0.25-12.70
4.41L2'3 4.06
1.72 1.92-12.23
40
40
9
27 - 60
27.2
26.8
4.5 17.8- 45.5
15 6 0.5 j 222 48 1"7"/_ "7_0 30 25 331
15 0 0.0 214 45 155 67 25 24 29
10 10 0.9 44 15 123 19 17 .9 19
2-38 0-40 0- 5 122-384 26 - 119 39-796 21- 126 7 - 85 13-69 8 -9Q
0.8j 0.1 17 I.I
0.7 0.1 16 1.0
0.3 0.4- 2.2
0.1
0.0-0.6
5
6-30
0.2 0.8 - 1.5
91
89
30
40- 331
Table 26 (continued)
*Nmnbcr
of ,hale emph)yccs by Iocatio,i, producli_mcategoryand quartile (i)crccnl !.nparentlmsis)
Quartilc I Pr_luclion Ntm-PrLxlucti.n
Quartile 2 Production Hi)n-PllxJuL'ii)n
Quartile 3 PrtKluction Non-Production
Anlwcq)
38
38
Decatur
7
22
38
12
40
15
38
4
51
13
Total
45 (43)
GO(57)
78 (74)
27 (2(,)
89 (84)
27 (16).
I Mean i! dpilictnlly diffacnt (P < .0.%Bonfc.oai (l_um) I lUl) from liD"metal ol'lh I" quartile zbleml i| Idpificlmlly diffc:rcnt (P < .05, Uemfenoni(Dram)I test)fromIhe mcmlof Ihe 2-' qumlilc zMe.ami| idlnlflcanll), different(P < .05oBcmfenoni(Dunn)t teal)hornIhe meanof Ih 3_ quartile 4Mean is sillnificandydifferent(P < .05, Bonfc.oni (Du,u0 1test)fromIhc meanof Ihc 4'hquartile
.,M Compa,ly Page 56 of 121
Quarlile 4 Production Non-Production
36
2
63
4
99 (94)
6 (6)
Table 27
Antwerp and Decatur Male Produclion and Non-Production Employee Thyroid Results by Quartile of Serum PFOS Distribution*
(N = 421)
,4Co,11p-',lty I'age 57 of 12 I
TSH T4 Free T4 '!3 THBR Frl
Quartile ! (N = 105) Mean Median SI) Ranlle
2.0
1.9
1.2 0.03-$3
8.3
8.5
1.4 5.0 - 11.5
1.1
!.1
0.2 0.9- 1.5
1244 123
17 94- 164
33 _'4 33
3
26 - 42
2.7
2.7
0.5 1.7 - 4.2
Quarlile 2 (N : 105,):
Mean Median SD
Range
3.1
2.0
6.6 0.5-65.3
8.2
8.4
1.4 4.2 - 12.0
l,l
!.1 0.1 0.6- 1.4
128 127 20
86- 186
32
33
3
24 - 41
2.6
2.5 0.4
i.2 - 4.0
.
Quartile 3 (N : 106)
Mean Median SD Range
: 2.1 1.7 - 2.0 0.2-18.8
8.3 8.2
1.5 3.3 - 12.9
!.1 I.l
0.2 0.4- 1.6
127
126 2l
9J - 196
32' 32
3
25 - 43
2.6 2.6
0.5
1.0 - 4. i
Quartile4 (N : 105)
Mean Median SD
Range
2.5
1.9 2.8 0.5-21.5
8.4
8.2
1.4 4.7 - I1.4
1.1
1.2 0.2 0,8- 1.6
1321 131
22
87 - 190
32'
32
3
25 - 4 I
2.6
2.6
0.4 1.6 - 3.6
*See Table 26 for serum PFOS distribution
Meanis sillnifR:anildyifferent(P < .05, BonfetTmt(iDunn)t lest) fromthe meanof the I" qumtile M_m is sl|nificantlydifferent(P.< .05, Bonfenoni(Dunn)t lest) fromIhe meanof the 2mdquartile Meanis siBnificamlldyifferent(P < .05, Boaferroni(Dunn)t teat)fromthe meaaof the3"_quartile 4Mc_ is al|nifieantlydifferent(P< .05,Bmferroni(Dunn)I IrJt)fromthe meanof the4_. quartile
/
Table 28
Anlwerp and Decatu," Female Production and Non-Production (H = 97) FI.orochemical, Demographic and Clinical Chemistry Results by Quartile of Serum PFOS Distribution
_,,_MCoinpa,_y Page 58 of 121
PFO$ PFOA
QumtiJe I _H,_24)
Me'-,,t Median SD
Raalle
0.073.4 0.08
0.02 0.04-0.10
0,043.*
0.02
0.04 0.01 -0.23
Quartile2 (N = 24)
Mean Median SD
RanBe
0.134
0.13
0.03 0.10-0.19
0.0"/4 0.05 0.07 0.02-0.34
TOF* Ale BMI
0.09 i'+ 344 22.84
0.09 34 23.4
0.04 0.05 -0.26
9
24 - 52
2.7 18.4 - 28.3
0.17 s'4 0.14
3"/4
36
23.94 22.2
0.07 ,0.09-0.35
7
25 - 52
4.3
17.3 - 32.3
Years Worked I I
C'igaretteJ/day 14
Drinks/day
0.4'
Chol_l
207.
HDL
66
'rrillyceddes
93
AIk Phol
504
GGT
II 4
AST
19
ALT
13
Total BJUmbln 0.8 j'4
Direct BHImbtn 0.1
BUN
14
Creatlnine
0.9
Glucose
80:
g 0 0.3 203 61 90 52 10 19 12 0.8 0.1 13 0.9 82
8
I - 29
4
0-20
0.4
0- I
39
132 - 274
16
46- 121
48
26- 248
16
22-81
?
2-32
4i
II-31
5
8-35
0.2 0.5- 1.2
0.1 0.0-0.4
3
9-23
0.2 0.6- 1.3
14
38- 98
15
14
7
24
0
5
0.44
0.3
0.4
203
198
39
65
64
16
91
88
41
441.4
44
il
13
10
8
I it
16
7
16
13
11
0.83.4 0.8
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
16
16
4
1.0
1,0
0.2
93 t
92
13
3 - 29 0- 15 0- I 138 - 302 33- 104 24 - 172 20-65 5-41 9-43 6-58 0.2- 1.7 0.0-0.2 7-22 0.7- 1.4 65- 125
Mean 0.391
Quartile3 (N: 25)
Median SD
Range
0.37
0.15 0.20-0.70
0.611 0.36
0.74 0.04-3.50
0.80 t'_'+ 0.59
39
38
25.5
23.6
0.61 0.21-3.02
9
25 - 58
6. I
18.3 - 45.3
12
10
9
2
0
7
0.3
0
0.4
200
200
32
63
61
15
107
91
53
59"
56
16
14
12
6
19
19
5
16
15
6
0.6 t'2 0.6
0.2
0.1
0.1
0,1
14
14
4
0.9
0.8
0.1
85
87
12
2 - 27 0-30 0-2 !39 - 27 i 38- 104 32 - 233 32-91 7-30 11-33 7-36 0.3- 1.0 0.0-0.2 5-23 0.7- !.2 49- II0
Men.
Quartile4 (H ,=24)
Media. SD
Ra.B
1.51''2'_ !.34
0.76 0.77-3.62
!.88 c2'] 1.39
1.20 0.25-5.41
2.77 t'2'3 2.66
44 ''2
45
2S.7 ''2 27.8
1.44 0.86-7.81
6
30- 52
5.7 20.3 - 41.S
14
12
8''2
0
0 t'2
0
208
202
60
58
164
104
69 s'2
70
22'
14
19
18
19
16
0.5 j'2
0.5
0.1
0.1
13
13
0.9
0.8
87
87
I0 13 0.1 42 13 206 18 21 7 IO 0, ! 0.04 5 0.2 12
3 - 32 0-40 0- 1 129 - 313 36-91 42 - 1049 41 - 100 6-97 7-39 6-47 0.3 -0.8 0.0- 0.1 I -23 0.6- 1.2 67- 123
"Fable 28 (continued)
*Number of fmale cmployccs by location, production category and quartile (percent in parenthesis)
Quartile I Ptt,Nlttctl(m Non-Production
Quartile 2
Pmdm-Iion
Non-Pr,_uclicm ",
Quartile 3
Production
Non-Production
Antwerp
3
20
De_e_ur
0
I
2
17
I
4
!
6
7
II
Total
3 (12)
21 (88)
3 (12)
21 (88)
8 (32),
17 (68)
t Mean is significantly diffexen! (P < .05, ,Boafenoni (Dram) ! test) from the mcmt of ihc 1"qmmil :Mean is siilnificanlly different (P < .05, Bonfcrroni (Dum0 ! leatt)from tlte mean of Ilte 2" quartile 3Mean is slllniflcanlly different (P < .05. Bonferroni (Dunn) t teat)from the nwamof the 3" quartile 4Mean is sillnificantly different (P < .05, Iltmfenolli (Dunn) I lest) from the mean of the 4a'qumlilc
) "-
t
M Company Page 59 of 121
Quanile 4
Produclion
Non-Pr_luclion
0
0
22
2
22 (92)
2 (8)
'
l Compal_y
Table 29
l'agc60ot 12!
AntwerpandDecaturPemaleProductionandNon-ProductioEnmployee(N = 9"7) ThyroidResults*by Quartileof SerumPFOSDistribution**
TSH 1"4 lZreeT4 T3 TitBR PT!
QumrlileI Mean Median SD
R,mg
2.2
2.2
1.2 ,0.03 - 4.9
10.2 I.I 145
10.2 I.I
147
2.0 6.6- 13.8 0.1 0.8 - 1.3 28 98- 191
29
29
2.9
2.9
4
19 - 36
0.5 2. I - 3.6
Qua,tilc 2 Mean Median SD
2.2
2.0
1.5
Ranse 0.03 - 6.7
9.8
9.8 3.1
1.2
I.I
0.7
147
139 .'i3
4.6- 18.3 0.7 -4.6 81 -345
31
32
6
22 - 46
3.0
2.8
1.3
1.7 - 8.4
Quartile3 Mean Median SD
; 2.5 2. t
1.4
Range 0.7 - 6.5
9.9 9.5
2.3 5.8- 15.1
I.I I.I
0.l
0.9- 1.3
|
133
129 3"1 86-228
28
27
,3
23 - 36
2.7 2.7
0.5
t.7 - 3.8
Quartile4 Mean Median SD
2.3
2.2
1.0
Ranl_e 1.0 - 5.2
9.1 1.0 127
8.7 . 2,1
1.0 0.1
120
28
5.8- 14.2 0.7 - 1.2 86- 196
27
27
4
18 - 32
2.4
2.4
0.4 1.6 - 3.0
*No significantly different(P < .05, Bonferroni{Dunn) t test) mean;'values **See Table 28 for serum PFOS quartiledistribution
Table 30
._ Company Page 61 of t2l
Number of Participants (Percent in Parenthesis) by Employee Population
Which Had AboveReferenceRangeValuesforHepaticClinicalChemistryTestsby Quartileof SerumPFOSDistribution
_amJUIma
AlkaU_Phmpluttate OI 02 O] Q4
AST QI Q2 Q) Q4
ALT QI Q2 Q3 Q4
t
""
GOT
QI Q2 03 04
TotalLiverPani*
QI
Q2
Q3 Q,I
IM)duciloalut_ O(O) I (I) 3(3) 2(2) Hm-IMMmioa
3(3) I (I) I (I) 4(4)
Vumbeaq_,_ PmtuaJomnds 0 (o) 0 (0) u (o) 0 (113 Hm-Pmdaakat
0 (03 I (4) o(03 0 (o1
4 (4) 4(4) 7(7) 13(12)
?
0 (o) I (4) 0 (It) 0 (03
6(6) 11(8) 6(6) 12(12) 15(14) 17(16) 17(16) 24(23)
0 (03 0 (0) 0 (0) 2(S)
0 (03 2 (u) 0 (03 2 (u)
*lnchs_ Alkaline_
AST.ALl; GOT.TotalandDirectBllimbin
_ Treble26 formum PlC3Squmile dimibutkm a See Table211fogt,emm Plq3Squadlledi_ibutimt
p
Intercept PFOS ProductionJob (yes/no) Anlwerp/Decatur Age BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked
R2= .08
^djR =.O6
*Natural log
Table 3 I
MultivariablcRegression Model of Cholesterol* by PFOS and OtherPotential ExplanatoryVariables
for Antwelp and Decatur Male Employee Participants. 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 5.072 0.020
- 0.010 - 0.025
0.006 0.001 0.0007 0.035 - 0.002
SE
;
0.081
0.009
0.023
0.025
0.002 0.002
0.001
0.012
?i
0.001
I
p value .0001 .04 .66 .31 .0002 ".62 -.49 .004 .15
A Company Page 62 of 121
Partial R 2 -
< .01 < .01 < .01
.04 < .01 < .01
.02 < .01
Intercept PFOA Production Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age. BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked
R2= .08 Adj R2= .06
*Natural log
Table 32
Multivariable Regression Model of Cholesterol* by PFOA and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants. 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 5.069 0.015
- 0.012 - 0.032
0.007 0.001 0.0006 0.03 - 0.002
SE 0.080 0.008 0.024 0.025 ' 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.01 0.001
p value .0001 .05 .63 .22 .0001 .64 .52 .005 .21
.Q_lnpally Page63of 12!
Partial R2 < .01
< .01 < .01
.05 < .01 < .01
.02 < .0l
Intercept
PI_)S
'
PFOA
ProductionJob (yes/no)
Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI
Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked
R2 = .08
Adj R2 = ,06 *Nalurai log
Table 33
MultivariableRegression Model of Cholesterol* by PFOS and PFOA and Other Poten.tialExplanatoryVariables
for Antwerpand De.,ca_rMale Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 5.066 0.015 0.009
- 0.018 - 0.033
0.007
t
0.001
0.0007 0.035 - 0.002
SE 0.08! 0.010 0.008 0.024 0.025 0.002 0.002 0.IX}1 0.0! ._ 0.001
p value < .0001
.16 . .26
.46 .20 .0001 .62 .50 .004 .15
..M Compa.y Page 64 of 121
PartialR2 -
< .01 < .01 < .01 < .01
.05 < .01 < .01
.02' .004
,L
Intercept TOF
ProductionJob (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age. BMI
Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked
R2=.08
Adj R2 = .07 *Natural log
.t
Table 34
MultivadablcRegressionModelof Cholesterol*by TOF andOtherPotentialExplanatoryVariables
for AntwerpandDecaturMale EmployeeParticipants, 2000 MedicalSurvcillanccProgram
Parameter 5.065 0.015
- 0.018 - 0.034 0.007
0.001 0.0006 0.034 - 0.002
SE 0.081 0.006 0.024 0.025 0.002 0.002 " 0.001 0.012 0.001
o
p value t < .0001
.02 .45 .18 .0001 .63 .51 .005 .16
/
.,4 Company Page 65 of 12 i
PartialR2
< .01 < .01 < .01
.05. < .01 <.01
.02 < .01
Intercept PFOS Production Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age. BMi
Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked
R2= .33 Adj R2---.32 *Natural log
Table35
MultivariaRbelgeressioMnodelofHDL* byPFOS andOtherPotentiEaxlplanatoVrayriables
forAntwerpandDecatuMraleEmployeeParticipants, 2000MedicalSurveillanPcreogram
Parameter 4.313
-0.005 0.009
- 0.059 0.002
- 0.019 - 0.004
0.083 - 0.00l
SE 0.090 0.011 0.026 0.027 0.002 0.003 0.00l 0.014 0.002
p value < .000 l
.64 .73 .03 .37 < .0001 .0004 < .0001 .51
.'.
t
_.Clompany Page66 of 121
PartialR2
.01 < .01
.17 < .01
.07 .01 . .06 < .01
Intercept PFOA Production Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked
R2 = .34 Adj R2= .32 *Natural log
Table 36
Multivariable Regression Model of HDL* by PFOA and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 4.326
- 0.018 0.028
- 0.043 0.001
- 0.019 - 0.004
0.084 - 0.001
SE 0.090 0.009 0.027 0.028 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.014 0.002
p value <.0001 .04 .30 .13 .50 < .0001 .0004 < .0001 .54
Company Page67of 121
PartialR2 .04
< .01 .14
< .01 .07 .01 .06
< .01
Intercept
"
PFOS
PFOA
Production Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI
Ci garettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked
R2 = .34 Adj R2 = .32 *Natural log
Table 37
Mullivariablc Regression Model of HDL* by PFOS and PFOA and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 4.324 0.006
- 0.020 0.025
- 0.043 0.001
- 0.019 - 0.004
0.084 - 0.001
SE 0.090 0.012 0.010 0.271 0.028 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.014 0.002
p value < .0001
.60 , .04
.36 .13 .50 < .0001 .0004 < .0001 .49
...: Company Page68 of 121
Partial R z .01 .03
< .01 .14
< .01 .07 .01 .06
< .01
Intercept
,
TOP
Production Job (yes/no)
Antwerp/Decatur
Age, BMI
Cigarettes/day
Drinks/day Years Worked
14_- ,31 AdjII]_--...I1 *Nllltiralloll
Table 38
Multivadahle Regression Model of HDL* by TOF and Olher Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2{)00 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 4.322
- 0.010 0.022
- 0.050 0.001
- 0.019 - 0.004 J 0.084 - 0.0009
SE _ 0.090 0.007 0.027 0.028 :. 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.014 0.002
p value < .0001 . .14
.41 .08 .45 < .0001 .0004 < .0001 .58
i
.o
_..o.ol.o.o.j
_69 of 121
Partial R2
.03 < .01
.15 < .01
.07 .01 .06 < .01
Intercept PFOS ProductionJob (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age. BM! Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked
R2= .28 Adj R== .27 *Natural log
Table 39
Multivariable Regression Model of Triglycerides* by PFOS andOlhcr Potential ExplanatoryVariables
for Antwerpand Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Paramcter 2.768 0.066 0.023 0.151 0.013 0.055 0.008 0.033
- 0.007
SE 0.224 0.026 0.065 0.068 0.005 0.007 0.003 0.034 0.004
p value t < .0001
.01 , .72
.03 .009 < .0001 .002 .33 .07
..i Company Page 70 of 121
Partial R2
.03 < .01
.10 .02 .10 .02 < .01 < .01
Intercept PFOA
Production Job {yes/no)
Antwerp/Ik, catur
,
Age
BMI
Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked
R2 = .29 Adj Rz = .27 *Natural log
Table 40
Multivariable Regression Model of Tdglyccddcs* by PFOA and Olher Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2(X_0Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 2,742 0,066
- 0.004 0.111 0,014 0,055 0.008 0.029
- 0.007
_ SE 0,224 0.021 0.066 0.070 0.005 0.007 0.003 0.034 0.004
p value < .0001
.002 .95 .12 .005 < .0001 .003 .15 .11
.._ Co,npaay Page 71 of 12!
Partial R 2
.05 < .01
.08 .02 .10 .02 < .01 .005
/.
7
Intercept
"
PFOS
PFOA
Production Job (yes/no)
Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI
Cigarettes/day
Drinks/day Years Worked
R_ = .29
Adj R2 = .27 *Natural log
t
"
Table 4 !
Multivariable Regression Model of Tdglycerides* by PFOS and PFOA and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical. Surveillance Program
Parameter 2.734 0.037 0.053
-0.021 0.109 0.014 0055 0.008 0.030
- 0.007
SE 0.224 0.029 0.023 0.067 0.070 0.005 0.007 0.003 0.034 0.004
p value < .0001
.20 . .02
.76 .12 .004 < .0001 .002 .15 .07
Company Page72of 121
Partial R 2
.03 .02 < .01 .08 .02 .10 .02 < .0 l < .01
/" r
Intercept TOF ProduclionJob (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age. BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked
R2= .29 Adj R2 - .27 *Natural log
Table 42
MultivariablcRegression Model of Triglycerides* by TOF, and Other Potential ExplanatoryVariables
for Antwerpand Decatur MaZeEmployee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 2.736 0.056
- 0.017 0.113 0.014 0.055 0.008 0.030
- 0.007
SE 0.223 0.017 0.067 0.070 0.005 0.007 : 0.003 0.034 0.004
p value < .0001
.0009 .81 . 10 .005 < .0001 ,002 .37 .07
Company Page 73 of 121
Partial R2 .06
< .01 .08 .02 .10 .02
< .01 < .01
:
Intercept PFOS Production Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R 2 =. 18
Adj R 2 = .16 *Natural log
Table 43
Multivariable Regression Model of Alkaline Phosphatas* by PFOS and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antweq) and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 3.718 0.013 0.036 0.149 0.0008
- 0.004 0.002
- 0.024 - 0.002
0.083
SE 0.362 0.013 0.032 0.034 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.016 0.002 0.024
p value < .0001
.32 , .26
< .0001 .73 .26 .17 .14 .41 .0006
r ,
. Company "' Page 74 of 121
Partial R2
.02 < .0l
.11 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01
.02
/
,
.
Intercept PFOA
Production Job (yes/no)
Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R2 = .18
Adj11'.tO
*Natural log
!.Table 44
Muitivariab|e Regression Model of Alkaline Phosphatasc* by PFOA and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 3.746 0.0001 0.047 0.154 0.0006
- 0.004 0.002
- 0.024 - 0.001
0.086
SE 0.128 0.010 0.032 0.035 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.017 0.002 0.024
p value
t
< .0001
.99
, .15
< .0001 .80 .24
.18
.14 .52
.0004
.,M Company Page75 of 121
Partial R 2
.03 < .01
.10 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01
.03
"Fable45
Intercept PFOS PFOA
Multivariable Regression Model of Alkaline Phosphatase* by PFOS and PFOA and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
:
Parameter
i
SE
p value
3.747
0.128
< .0001
0.015
0.014
.28
- 0.005
0.012
.65
ProductionJob (yes/no)
0.040
0.033
.23
Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI
0.153 0.0007 - 0.004
0.034 0.002 0.004
< .0001 .78 .25
Cigarettes/day
0.002
0.001
.17
Drinks/day
- 0.024
0.017
.15
Years Worked
- 0.002
0.002
.42
Triglycerides*
0.085
0.024
.0005
R2=.18
Adj R2 =. 16 *Natural log
_,4iCompany Page76of 121
Partial R 2 ..
.02 < .01 < .01
.10 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01
.02
: ..... -4
Intercept TOP Production Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decat ur Age BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R2 = .18 AdJR2=.16 *Natural log
"Fable 46
Muitivariable Regression Model of Alkaline Phosphatase*by TOF and Olher Potential ExplanatoryVariables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 3.747 0.006 0.037 0.147 0.0008
- 0.004 0.002
- 0.024 - 0.002
0.084
AIk Phos SE 0.128 0.008 0.033 0.034 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.016 0.002 0.024
p value < .0001 , .47
.27 < .0001
.72 .25 .18 .14 .45 .0006
.l Compa,ly Page77 of 121
Partial Rz .04
< .01 . I0
< .01 " < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01
.02
Intercept PFOS ProductionJob (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R 2 = .25
Adj R2 = .23 *Natural log
Table 47
MultiwtriableRegression Model of GGT* by PFOS and Other Potential ExplanatoryVariables
forAntwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2(}00 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 1.246 0.028
- 0.003 0.255 0.0003 0.006 0.003 0.117 0.002 0.294
SE 0.239 0,024 0.059 0.063 0.004 0.007 0.003 0.031 0.004
y
0.045
p value < .0001
.24 .96 < .0001 .95 .36 .28 .0002 .45 < .0001
Company Page 78 of 121
Parlial R2 .03
< .01 .07
< .01 . .02 .01 .03
< .01 .08
: Intercept PFq3A ProductionJob (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R2 = .25
^dlr _'-.': _.
_illUi.uhl ,g
'
Table 48
Multivariable Regression Model of GGT* by PFOA and OtherPotential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 1.245 0.032
- 0.020 0.235 0.0009 0.006 0.003 0.116 0.003 0.289
SE 0.238 0.019 0.060 0.065 0.004 , 0.007 0.003 0.031 0.004 . 0.045
p value < .0001 0.10 . .74
.0003 .84 .35 .28 .0002 .40 < .0001
A Cumpany Page 79 of 121
Partial R2
,
.04 < .01
.06 .01 .02 .01 .03 < .01 .08
rs
Intercept
"
PFOS
PFOA
Production Job (yes/no)
Antwerp/Decatur Age BMi
Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked
Trigl ycerides*
R2 -- .25
Adj Rz = .23 *Natural log
Table 49
Multivariable Regression Model of GGT* by PFOS and PFOA and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 1.246 0,014 0.028
- 0.026 0.23 0.0009 0.006 0.003 0.116 0.003 0.288
SE {).239 0.027 0.021 0.062 0.065 0.004 0.007 0.003 0.031 0.004 0.045
p value t < .0001
.60 .20 .67 .0003 .82 .34 .27 .0002 .46 < .0001
i Company Page 80 of 121
.
Partial R2 .03 .02
< .001 .06 .01 .02 .01 .03
< .01 .08
Intercept TOP Production Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age. BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R2 = .25
atural log
Table 50
Multivariablc Regression Model of GGT* by TOF and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2(X)0 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 1.246 0.029
- 0.028 0.235 0.001 0.006 0.003 0.116 0.003 0.288
SE
'
0.238
0.016
0.061 0.064
0.004 0.007
0.003 0.031 0.003
0.045
t
p value < .0001
.06 , .64
.0003 .82 .33 .28 .0002 .48 < .0001
I Company Page81 o1'121
Partial R2 .04
< .01 .06 .01 .02 .01 " .03
< .01 .07
Intercept PFOS Production Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age. BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
S 2 -- .09
Adj R2= .07 *Naturallog
"Fable51
Multivariable Regression Model of AST* by PFOS and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 2.725 0.013
- 0.022 0.114 0.003 0.002
- 0.003 0.052
- 0.004 0.055
SE 0.133 0.013 0.033 0.035 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.017 0.002 0.025
p value < .0001
.33 , .50
.001
t
.28 .53
.04 .002 .05 .03
a
"3MCompany Page82 of 121
Partial R2 -
< .01 < .01
.03 < .01 < .01 < .01
.02 .01 .01
Intercept PFOA Production Job (yes/no) Anl werp/l)ecatur Age BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R2 = .09 Adj R2 = .07 *Natural log
Table 52
Multivariable RegresSion Model of AST* by PFOA and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2(X)0 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 2.725 0,015
- 0.030 0.105 0.003 0.002
- 0.003 0.051
- 0.004 0.053
SE 0. i 33 0.011 0.034 0.036 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.017 0.002 0.025
p value < .0001
.17 , .37
.004 .23 .51 .04 .003 .05 .04
,_Company Page 83 of 121
Partial R 2 .01
< .01 .02
< .01 < .01 < .01
.02 .01 < .01
/
Intercept
,
PFOS
PFOA
Production Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BM!
Cigarettes/day
Drinks/day Years Worked
Triglycerides*
R2 = .09 Adj R2 = .07 *Natural log
Table 53
Multivariable Regression Model of AST* by PFOS and PFOA and Olhelr Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 2.725 0.006 0.013
SE
;
0.132 0.015
0.012
p value < .0001
.68 .28
- 0.033 0.104 0.003 0.002
0.034
=
'0.036
0.002
0.004
.34 .004 " .23 .50
- 0.003
0.001
.04
0.052
: 0.017
.003
- 0.004
0.002
.04
0.052
0.025
.04
,. Company Page 84 of 121
Partial R2
< .01 < .01 < .01
.02 < .01 < .01 < .01
.02 .01 < .01
Intercept TOP ProductionJob (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BM! Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R2 - .09 Adj R2= .07 *Naturallog
Table54
MultivariablcRegrcssionModel of AST* by TOF andOlherPotentiaEl xplanatoryVariabl_
for AntwerpandDecaturMale EmployeeParticipants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parmmter 2.725 0.011
- 0.031 0.106 0.003 0.002
- 0.003 0.052
- 0.004 0.053
SE 0.133 0.009 !. 0.034 0.036 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.017 0.002 0.025
p.value < .0001
.17 , .36
.003 .24 .51 .04 .003 .04 . .04
i
.t Company Page85of!21
..
PartialR2 .01
< .01 .02
< .01 < .01 < .01
.02 .01 < .01
Inlcrccpt
"
PFOS
Production Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI
Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked
Triglycendes*
R2 = .27
Adj R2= .25 *Natural log
Table 55
Muliivariable Regression Model of ALT* by PFOS and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Paramelcr 1.744 0.021 0.017 0.172
- 0.002 0.025
- 0.007 - 0.006 - 0.004
0.189
SE O.16.5 0.0 !8 0.043 0.042 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.024 0.002 0.032
p value < .0001
.25 .69 < .0001 .50 < .0001 .0003 .79 .10 < .0001
,, Company l_agc86 of J2I
Partial R2
.0 I < .01
.06 < .01
.13 .01 < .01 < .01 .05
/'
In tercept PFOA Production Job (yes/no)
Antwerp/Decatur
Age BM 1 Cigarcltcs/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R2 = .27 Adj R2= .25 Natural log
Table 56
Mullivariablc Regression Model of ALl'* by PFOA and Other PolenUalExplanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants,
2(XX)Medical SurveillanceProgram
* i
Parameter
SE
p value
1.761
0.165
< .0001
0.005
0.003
.13
0.027
0.041
.51
0.186 - 0.002
0.024
0.04 1 0.003 0.004
< .0001 .44
< .0001
- 0.007 - 0.005 - 0.004
!, 0.002 0.024 0,002
.0002 .83 .15
0.190
0.032
< .0001
_,.,,dCompany Page87 of 121
Partial R2 -
< .01 < .01
.07 < .01
.12 .01 < .01 < .01 .05
Intercept PFOS
PFOA
ProductionJob (yes/no)
Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI
Cigarettes/day
:
Drinks/day
Years Worked
Triglycerides*
R2 = .27 Adj R2 = .26 *Naturallog
Table 57
MultivariableRegression Modal of ALT* by PFOS and PFOA and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 1.757 0.019 0.004 0.013 0.176
- 0.002 0.025
- 0.007 - 0.006 - 0.004
0.187
SE 0.165 0.018 0.003 :, 0.043 0.042 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.024 0.002 0.032
p value
,
< .0001
.29
, .15
.76
< .0001 .50
< .0001
.0003
.80 .11
< .0001
.
, Company Page 88 of 121
Partial R2
.01 < .01 < .01
.06 < .01
.12 < .01 < .01 < .01
.05
,,
Intet_cept
"
TOF
Production Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BM!
Cigarettes/day Diinks/day Years Worked
Triglycerides*
R2 = .32 Adj R2= .31 Natural log
Table 58
Multivariable Regression Model of ALl'* by TOF and Other l'otenlial Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 1,965 0.029
- 0.054 0.296
- 0.003 0.012
- 0,007 0.01
- 0.002 0.199
SE 0.193 0.013 0.050 0.051 0.004 0.005 0.002 0.025 0.003 0.04
p value < .0001
.02 , .27 < .0001
.38 .02 .0003 .62 .44 < ,0001
._!Company Page89 of 121
Partial R2 .06
< .01 .15
< .01 .04 .01
< .01 . < .01
.05
i _ Lk_
"
Intercept PFOS Production Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides* R2= .29 Adj Rz = .27 *Natural log
Table 59
Multivadabl Regression Model of Total Bilirubin* by PFOS and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antweq_ and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2{){)0 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 0.209
- 0.017 - 0.068 - 0.262
0.001 - 0.005 - 0.008
0.005 0.0002 - 0.015
SE 0.145 0.015 0.036 0.038 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.02 0.002 0.027
p value < .0001
.25 .06 < .0001 .58 .19 < .0001 .80 .94 .57
.,,t Cl_mpany Page 90 of 12I
Partial R2 .03 .01 .18
< .01 < .01
.06 < .01 < .01 < .01
/
Intercept PFOA Pro/.luction Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R2 = .29 Adj R2 -.2 *Natural log
Table 60
Multivariable Regression Model of Total Bilirubin* by PFOA and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and DecatUrMale Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 0.210
- 0.004 - 0.078 - 0.265
0.002 - 0.005 - 0.008
0.005 - 0.0002 - 0.018
SE 0.145 0.011 0.037 0.039 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.019 0.002 0.027
p value < .0001
.74 , .04 < .0001
.54 .21 < .0001 .80 .91 .52
, Company Page 91 of 121
Partial Rz .05 .01 .17
< .01 < .01
.06 < .01 < .01 < .01
/,
Intercept PFOS PFOA Produclion Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI Cigareues/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R2 = .29 Adj R2= .27 *Natural log
Table 61
Multivariable Regression Model of Total Bilirubin* by PFOS and PFOA and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decalur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 0.209
- 0.018 0.002
- 0.070 - 0,264
0,002 - 0.005 - 0.008
0.005 0.0002 - 0,016
SE 0.144 0.016 0.013 0,037 0.039 : 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.002 , 0.002 0.027
p value < .0001
.27 .86 .063 < .0001 .57 .20 < .0001 .81 .95 .56
,t Company Page92 of 121
Partial R 2 -
0
.03 .02 .01 .16 <.01 < .01 .06 < .01 < .01 < .01
.,
Intercept TOF Production Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Tdglyceddes*
R2 = .29 Adj R2 = .27 *Natural log
Table 62
Muitivariablc Regression Model of Total Bilimbin* by TOff and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants. 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 0.210
- 0.011 - 0.064 - 0.257
0.001 - 0.005 - 0.008
0.005 0.00007 - 0.014
SE 0.144 0.009 0.037 0.039 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.019 0.002 0.027
p value
,
< .0001
.25
.09 < .0001
.62 .19
< .0001 .78 .98
.60
: Company Page 93 of 12i
Partial R2
.06 .01 .16 < .0 ! < .01 .06 < .01 < .01 < .01
Intercept PFOS Produclion Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycefides*
R2 = .07 Adj R2 = .05 Naturallog
Table 63
MultivariableRegression Model of TSH* by PffOS and Other Potential ff_planatoryVariables
forAntwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter - 0.539 0.015 0.109 0.184 0.005 - 0.005 - 0.005 0.057 - 0.008 0.204
SE 0.327 0.033 " 0.081 0.086 0.006 0.009 0.003 0.042 0.005 0.061
p value .10 .65 .18 .03 .36 .56 .17 .17 .13 .001
Company Page 94 of 121
'
PartialR2
< .0! < .01
.02 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .0 l
.02
Intercept PFOA ProductionJob (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BM! Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked
Triglycerides*
R2 - .07 Adj R2 = .05 *Naturallog
Table 64
!
m
Mullivariahlc Regres'sionModel of TSH* by PFOA and Other Potential Explanalory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants 20(X}Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter - 0.539 0.018 0.100 0.173 0.006 - 0.005 - 0.005 0.056 - 0.008 0.201
SE 0.327 0.027 0.083 0.088 0.006 0.009 0.003 0.042 0.005 0.062
p value .10 .51
, .23 .051 .33 .56 .17 .18 .13 .001
, Company Page 95 of 121
.
Partial R 2 .02
< .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01
.02
Intercept PFOS PPOA ProductionJob (yes/no) Antwe. rp/Decatur Age BMI
Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R2--.07 Adj Rz -.05 *Naturallog
Table 65
MultivariableRegression Model of TSH* by PFOS and PFOA and Other Polential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerpand Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2{X)0Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter - 0.539 0.007 0.015 0.096 0.173 0.006 - 0.005 - 0.005 0.056 - 0.008 0.200
SE 0.327 0.036
0.029
0.084
0.089 0.006 0.009
!
0.003
,D
0.042 0.005
0.062
p value .10 .85 .61 .25 .05 .33 .57 .17 .18 .13 .001
!.
.,/I (',roll,ally Page 96 of 12 I
PartialR 2 -
< .01 <.01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01
."
< .01 < .01
.02
Intercept TOF ProductionJob (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age. BM! Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R2 = .07
Adj R2 = 05"
'
*Naturallog
Table 66
MultivariahlcRegression Model of TSH* by TOF and Olher Polenlial ExplanatoryVariables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 20(}0 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter - 0.539 0.015 0.097 .174 0.006 - 0.005 -0.005 0.056 - 0.008 0.201
SE 0.327
t
0.021 0.084 0.088 0.006 0.009 _ 0.003 0.042 0.00_ o 0.062
p value .10 .49 .25
.05 .33 .57 .17 .18 .12 .001
._!Company Pag_97of 121
.
PartialRz .02
< .01 .01
< .01 < .01 <.01 < .01 < .01
.02
,/
Intercept PFOS Produclion Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R2= .02 Adj R2 = .01 *Natural log
Table 67
Multivariable Regression Model of T4* by PFOS and Olbcr Polenlial Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2(}00 Medical Surveillance Progrdm
Parameter 2.263
- 0.003 - 0.003
0.011 - 0.003
0.001 0.0009 - 0.024 0.001 - 0.018
SE 0.090 0.009 0.022 0.024 0.002 0.003 0.0009 0.012 0.001 0.017
p value
,
< .001
.78
.91 .64 .08 .66
.32 .04 .35 .29
!
Company Page98 of 121
Partial R2 -
< .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .0 l < .01 < .01 < .01
Intercept PFOA
Production Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI.
Cigareltes/day
Drinks/day Years Worked
Triglycerides*
R2 = .03
Adj R2 = .01 *Natural log
Table 68
Multivariable Regression Model of T4* by PFOA and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp :md Decatur Male Employee Participants, 200(} Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 2.263 0.0003
- 0.005 0.010
- 0.003 0.001 0.001 -0.02 0.001
- 0.019
SE
;
0.090
t
' 0.007
0.023 0.024 0.002 0.003
0.0009 0.01 0.001
0.017
p value < .0001
.97 , .82
.69 .09 .64 .31 .04 37 .28
L Uiiq)dlty .._c99 of 121
Partial R2
<.01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01
Intercept
PFOS PFOA ProductionJob (yes/no)
Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R2 = .03 Adj R2 = < .01 *Natural log
Table 69
Mullivariable Regression Model of T4* by PFOS and PFOA and OtherPotentialExplanatory Variables
for Antwerpand Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2(100Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter
2.263
- 0.003 0.001
- 0.004 0.010
- 0.003 0.001 0.0009
- 0.024 0.001 - 0.018
SE
0.090
0.010 0.008 0.023
0.024 0.002 0.003
0.0009 0.012 0.001
t
' 0.017
p value
< .0001
.74 , .86
.87 .68 .09 .65 ".32 .04 .35 .29
. Company Page 100of 121
PartialRz
< .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .0 I < .0I < .01
r
Table 70
Multivariable Regression Model ofT4* by TOF and OtherPotentialExplanatoryVariables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
intercept
"
TOF
ProductionJob (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI
Cigarclte_@day Drinks/day Years Worked
Triglycerides*
Parameter 2.263 0.0002
- 0.005 0.010 - 0.003 0.001 0.001 - 0.024 0.001 - 0.019
R2 -- .03
Adj R2 = < _01 *Natural log
t
SE 0.090 0.006
0.023 0.024 0.002 0.003
0.0009
t
" 0.012 0.001
0.017
p value < .0001
.97 , .82
.68 .09 .64 .31 .04 .37 .28
C(_mp;my Page 101 of 121
ParlialR2
< .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .0[ < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01
Intercep[
"
PFOS
Production Job (yes/no) Anlwerp/Decatur Age BM!
Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked
Triglycerides*
R 2 = .06
Adj R2 = .04 *Naturallog
s
_l'able71
Multivariable Regression Model of Free T4* by PFOS and OIher Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 0.299
- 0.004 - 0.030 - 0.021 - 0.003 - 0.003 - 0.0009
0.006 0.002 0.003
SE : 0.076 0.008 0.019 0.020 0.001 0.002 0.0008 0.010 0.00 !. 0.014
p value < .0001
.63 . .11
.28 .03 .13 .27 .56 .21 .85
._MCompany Page 102of 121
PartialR 2 < .01
< .01 .03 .01
< .01 < .01 < .01 < .0 l < .01
Intercept PFOA ProductionJob (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age. BM! Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R2= .07 Adj R2= .04 *Natural log
lt
Table 72
MultivadablcRegressionModcl of FreeT4* by PFOA a,ldOtherl)otcntialExplanatoryVariables
for Antwerpa,ldDecaturMale EmployeeParticipants, 2000MedicalSurveillanceProgram
Parameter 0.299
- 0.006 - 0.025 - 0.017 - 0.003 - 0.003 - 0.0009
0.006 0.002 0.004
SE ; 0.076 0.006 0.019 ", 0.021 0.001 0.002 0.0008 0.010 0.001 0.014
p value .0001 .31
, .19 .41 .02 .13 .27 .53 .20 .78
.
!'
M CUml);my _ _gc 103 of 121
PartialRj .01
< .01 .02 .01
< .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01
.t
..
Table 73
MultivariableRegression Model of Free T4* by PFOS and PFOA and Other Potential ExplanatoryVariables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Intercept PFOS PFOA ProductionJob (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BMi Cigarettes,/day Drinks/day Years Worked Tdglycerides*
R2 = .07 Adj g a --.04 *'" "ruralog
Pman_ter 0.299
- 0.0005 - 0.006 - 0.025 - 0.020 - 0.003 - 0.003 - 0.0009
0.006 0.002 0;004
SE 0.076 0.008 0.007 0.020 0.210 0.001 0.002 0.0008 0.0!0 0.001 0.014
".
p value .0001 .96
. .37 .21 .41 .02 .13 .27 .54 ".20 .77
3M Company Page 104of 121
Partial R 2 -
< .01 < .01 < .01
.02 .01 < .01 .002 < .01 < .01 < .01
"
Intercept
,
TOP
ProductionJob {yes/no)
Antweqd[k, catur Age: BMI
Cigaretles/day Drinks/day Years Worked
Triglycerides*
Rz = .06
Adj R2 = .04 *Natural log
Table 74
MultivariableRegressioMn odel of FreeT4* byTOF andOtherPotentiaEl xplanatoryVariables
for AntwerpandDecaturMale EmployeeParticipants, 2000MedicalSurveillanceProgram
Parameter 0.299
- 0.004 - 0.025 - 0.018 - 0.003 - 0.003 - 0.0009
0.006 0.002 0.004
SE
0.076 0.005
0.020
0.020 0.001 0.002
"
0.0008
0.010
0.001
0.014
s
p value .0001 .37
. .19 .38 .02 .13 .27 .01 .19 .79
3MCompany Page105of 121
Partial Rz .01
< .01 .02 .01
< .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01
Intercept PFOS Production Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age. BM ! Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R2= .35 Adj R2 = .34
*HI,!,l,qI,,l,!I
Table 75
Multivariable RegressionModel of THBR* by PFOS and Olher Potential Explanatory Valiables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medicai Surveillance Program
Parameter 3.589 - 0.003 - 0.006 - 0.090 - 0.0005 - 0.001 - 0.0007 - 0.015 - 0.0002 - 0.003
SE 0.041 0.004 0.010 0.011 0.0008 0.001 t 0.0004 0.005 0.0007 0.008
p value < .0001
.40 , .55
< .0001 .50 .29 .13 .005 .77 .75
, -ge 1o6o{ 12]
Partial R2 .03
< .01 . .30
< .01 < .01 < .01
.01 < .01 < .01
Intercept PFOA ProductioJnob (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI
CigareUes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R2 = .35 Adj R2 = .34 *NillUFill 101l
"['able76
Multivariable Regression Model of THBR* by PFOA and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 3.589
-0.003 -0.006 - 0.089 - 0.0005 - 0.001 - 0.0007
0.015 - 0.0002 - 0.002
SE 0.041 0.003 0.010 0.011 0.0008 0.001 : 0.0004 0.005 0.0006 0.0O_
p value < .0001
.43 .58 < .0001 .48 .29 .13 .004 .71 .76
L
3M Coml)any PageI07 of' |21
PartiaRlz
.04 < .01 "
.28 < .01 < .01 < .01
.01 < .01 < .01
"
Intercept PFOS PFOA Produclion Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI Cigaretles/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R_= .35 Adj R2= .34 *_.tural log
"Fable 77
Multivariablc Regression Model of THBR* by PFOS and PFOA and Olher Potcntial Explanatory Variables
for Antwclp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 3.589
- 0.003 - 0.002 - 0.005 - 0.088 - 0.0006 - 0.001 - 0.0007
0.015 - 0.0002 - 0.002
SE 0.041 0.005 0.004 0.011 0.011 0.0008 0.001 0.0004 0.005 0.0007 0.008
p value
< .0001
'
.58
, .64
.66 < .0001
.47 .28
.13 .004 .78
.79
3M Company Page 108 of 121
Partial Rz .03 .02
< .Ol .28
< .01 < .01 <.01
.01 < .01 < .01
,.
Intercept TOF
Production Job (yes/no)
Anlwelp/Decalur
Age BM!
Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked
Triglycerides*
R2= .35 Adj R2= .34 *Natural log
Table 78
Mullivariable Regression Model of THBR* by TOF and Olher Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 3.589
- 0.003 - 0.004 - 0.088 - 0.0006 - 0.001 - 0.0007
0.015 - 0.0002 - 0.002
SE 0.041 0.003 0.011 0.011 0.0008 0.001 0.0004 0.005 0.0007 0.008
p value < .0001
.29 , .69
< .0001 .45 .28 .13 .004 .77 .80
3MCompany Page 109of 121
Partial R2 .05
< .01 .28
< .01 < .01 < .01
.0l < .01 < .01
Intercept PPOS Production Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age. BMI Cigarettes/day DJinks/day Yeli0'tlWorked
'1_llJl)o',.IIol_,_*
III -' Iit
*Natural og
Table 79
Multiva0"i:d_lcl_cgn'ession Model of 171"i*by PFOS and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
0 o
Parameter 1.239
- 0.006 - 0.009 - 0.078 - 0.003 - 0.0001
0.0002 - 0.008
O.0flI
SE 0.085 0.009 0.021 0.022 0.002 0.002 0.0009 0.011 0.001
p value < .0001
.45 , .65
.0004 .03 .96 .82 .44 .41
II I1! .I
II IIItl
Ill
Partial R z
.01 < .01
.07 .02 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .o I
III
r*-
Intercept PFOA Production Job (yes/no) "Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day YearsWorked Triglyeerid_* R2 - .10 Adj R2 -- .08 *Natural log
t
_.
Table 80
Mullivariable Regression Model of FTI* by PFOA and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and DecaturMale Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 1.239
- 0.002 - 0.012 - 0.079 - 0.003 - 0.00007
0.0002 - 0.008
0.001 - 0.023
SE 0.085 0.007 0.021 0.023 0.002 0.002 0.0009 ' 0.011 0.00 ! 0.016
p value < .0001
.77 .56 .0006 .03 .98 .80 .44 A7 .15
3M Company Page 111 of 121
PartialR2 .01
< .01 .07 .02
< .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01
Intercept PFOS PI'OA ProductionJob (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R_=.10 Adj R2 = .08 *Natural log
Table 8 I
MultivariableRegression Model of FTI* by PFOS and PFOA and Other PotentialExplanatoryVariables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 1.239
- 0.006 0.0002 - 0.010 - 0.079 - 0.003 - 0.0001 0.0002 - 0.008 0.001 - 0.022
SE : 0.085 0.009 0.008 0.022 0.023 0.002 0.002 0.0009 0.011 0.00 w 0.016
p value < .0001
.49 , .98
.66 .0007 .03 .96 .82 .44 .41 .17
JM COml_mty P+'gc 112 of 121
Partial R 2
.01 < .01 < .01
.06 .02 .02 < .01 < .01 .002 .004
Intercept TOF
Produclion Job (yes/no) Anlweq_)ecatur Age BM !
Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
.i
R2 = .10
^djR'=.0S
*Natural log
" Table 82
Multivariable Regression Model of FI'I* by TOF and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants. 2(X}0 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 1.239
-0.003 - 0.010 - 0.078 - 0.003 - 0.0001
0.0002 - 0.008
0.001 - 0.022
SE 0.085 0.006 0.022 0.023 i 0.002 0.002 0.0009 0.011 0.001 0.016
p value
< .0001
'
.62
, .63 .0007 .03 .97
.81 .44 .44 .16
3M Company Page I13of121
Partial R2 .01
< .01 .06 .02
< .01 < .01 < .01 < .01 < .01
f ......
/
/
Inlerccpl PFOS
Produclion Job (yes/no) Anlwerp/Decatur Age BMI
,"
CigareUcs/day Drinks/day Years Worked
Triglycerides*
R2 = .12
^,!j =-l.0
*Nalu,al og
Table 83
Mullivariable Regression Model of T3* by PFOS and Olhcr Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employe_ Participants, 2(_)0 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameler 4.702 0.015
0.022 - 0.099 - 0.002
0.005
0.003 - 0.027 - 0.0006
0.020
"
SE : 0.074
0.007 0.018 0.019 0.001 0.002 0.0008 0.009 0.001 0.014
p value < .0001
.04 .23 < .0001 .24 .02 .001 .004 .60 .15
A Company Page 114 of 121
Partial R2
.01 .01 .03 < .01 .02 .02 .02 < .01 < .01
Intercept PFOA
ProductionJob (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI
:
Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked
Triglyceddes*
R2 = .13 Adj R2 = .11 *Natural log
Table 84
Multivadable Regression Model of T3* by PFOA andOtherPotentialExplanatoryVariables
forAntwerpandDecaturMale EmployeeParticipants, 2000MedicalSurveillanceProgram
Parameter 4.702 0.016 0.015
- 0.109 - 0.001
0.005 0,003 - 0.028 - 0.0004 0.018
SE 0.073
?
0.006
0.019 0.020 0.001 0.002
".
0.0008 0.009 0.001
: 0.014
p value < .0001
.01 , .41
< .0001 .33 .02 .001 .003 .70 .20
Company Page llSof 121
Partial R2
.02 < .01
.03 < .01
.02 ' .02 .02 < .01 < .01
Intcrcpl
"
PFOS
PFOA
Production Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur
Age BM!
Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked
Triglycerides*
Itj = .13
Adj R2 =. 11 *Naturallog
"Fable85
Multivariable Regression Model ofT3* by PFOS and PFOA and Other PotefltialExplanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employ_ Pmicipants, 2000 Medical Survcillanco Program
Parsmetcr 4.703 0.009 0.013 0.012
- 0.109 - 0.001
0.005 0.003 - 0.028 - 0.0006 0.017
SE 0.073 0.008 0.007 0.019 0.020 0.001 0.002 0.0008 0.009 0.001 0.014
p value < .0001
.29 .05 .54 < .0001 .35 .01 .001 .003 .59 .23
i Company Pagel16of 121
Partial R2 .0I
< .01 <.01
.03 < .01
.02 .02 .02 < .01 < .01
/
Intercept TOF Production Job (yes/no) Antwerp/Decatur Age BMI Cigarettes/day Drinks/day Years Worked Triglycerides*
R2 = .13 Adj R2=.1 r *Natural log
: Table 86
Multivariable Regression Model of'l"3* by TOF and Other Potential Explanatory Variables
for Antwerp and Decatur Male Employee Participants, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
Parameter 4.702 0.014
i
SE 0.073 0.005
p value < .0001
.004
0.011 =0.109
a
- 0.001 0.005
0.019 0.020 0.001 0.002
, .54 < .0001 .35 .01
0.003
" 0.0007
.001
- 0.028
0.009
.003
- 0.0007
0.001 .
.56
0.017
0.014
.22
.._ Company Page l 17of !21
Partial R2
.02 < .01
.03 < .01
.02 .02 .02 < .01 < .01
3M Company
,
?:2_e If8 of 121
/
Figure 1. Linear Regression Model of Triglgycerides* by PFOA* for Antwen_ Male Emi_ioyees, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
J
|3 _ /
iI
_ _11
Q =" "
::1 --- .. I " I ' I " I " I " I ' i ' I I"
'
...
'l_
Summary of Fit
/......
RSquare
_o .' o
0.029
....
Analysis of Variance
Source Model
Error C Total
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square
I
1.863
1..863
204
61.193
0299
205
63.056
F Ratio 6.211
Prob>F 0.014
Parameter Estimates
Term
Intercept In PFOA
Estimate
4.695 0.073
Std Error
0.042 0.029
t Ratio Pmb>lt!
111.43 <.0001 2.49 0.014
*naaa_ log
-o
3M Company Page 119 of 121
/
'
Figure 2. Linear Regression of Tdglyceddes* by PFOA" for Decatur Male
Employees, 2000 Medical Surveillance Progri_m
/) 6._-
1.3",
s.s-
o
I, -=
" "-",l
,, ,@_'Ib_ _.
1.I"
:'
II
].*_ ' * = = = , = I ' , ' J -_.) 4.0 -J.O -Z.O -_) .0 1.O Z.O ,T._ ,.0 S.O
Summary of Rt
/
RSquare
0.028
.... "'"
Analysis of Variance.
Source Model Error
C Total
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square
I
2.164
2.164
213
73.969
0.347
214
76.133
F:Ratio 6.232
Prob>F
0.0t3
Parameter Estimates
Term Intercept In PFOA
Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>Jtl
5.052
0.041 122.27 <0001
0.098
0.039
2.50 0.013
naturallog
3M Company "_zg_e 120of t21
.
Figure 3. Linear Regression of Tdglyceddes* by PFOA" for Antwerp an_" _- .....
Female Employees, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
1) i
........
(
N 5.)
t. %
t.I -_'d
.o.
41
I) I'l'.',.i.,.i,l.i'l. -_i -! -.l -2 -1 I 1 2 ] t.
Summary of Fit
P-,Squa_
--AnalysofiVsariance
0.078
Source Model
Error
C Total
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square
I
2.519
2.519
95
29.877
0.314
96
32396
Parameter Estimates
F Ratio: 8.0I
Prob>F
O.(X_
Term Intercept In PFOA
Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>ltl
4.690
0.081 58.14 <.0001
0.091
0.032 2.83 0.006
*mmral Iog
i
-o .
3M Company
,
Page 121 of 121.
("
,
Figure 4. Linear Regression of Tdglycerides* by P..FOA*for Cottage Grove Male
Employees, 2000 Medical Surveillance Program
..
7)
S.i "
t.) "
_.i- . =
".
"
"
gO
:" . I,..".,'_ -....,,---
,.t "
"" " "
=
I_
" I " I "I'I'I"
I'I'I'I'
-S -! -I -t -I I I t ] ! S
_KU
Summaw of Fit
RSquare
0.008
_,. L
Analysis of Variance
Source Model
E.n'or
C Total
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square
1
0.452
0.452
129
54.251
0.421
130
54.704
F Ratio 1.076
Prob>F
0_302
Term
Intercept In PFOA
Parameter Estimates
Estimate
5.022 0.032
Std Error
0.057 0.031
t Ratio Prob>ltl
88.04 <.000I 1.04 0.302
log
L
*.