~ubject. August 20, 1975 Fluorocarbons in Human Blood P] asma CONFIDENTIAL TO : L. C. KROGH - COMMERICAL CHEMICAL DIVISION - 223-6SE J. D. LAZERTE - COMMERCIAL CHEMICAL DIVISION - 236-1 A. NEWMARK - CENTRAL RESEARCH - 201-2W A. PENDERGRASS - MEDICAL DEPARTMENT - 220-2E ~[ FROM: G. H. CRAW~FORD - PHOTOGRAPHIC PRODUCTS - 209-1S Record of a Telephone Conversation Person calling - August 14, 1975 Dr. William Guy College of Medicin~ University of Florida Gainesville, Florida Dr. Guy called again, following up on the su0ject (vide my earlier memo) to see if we had any further i,]eas as to possible sources of the fluorocarbon carboxy[ic acids found in human blood samples from Texas and New Yo~k. I got John Pendergrass on the line and Guy brought in a Dr. Tays (who apparently was involved in the original observation). The original sampling involved plasma specim.]ns from Albany, New York, Rochester, New York (low natural fluoride in the water) Hillsborough, Texas, Andrews, Texas, .and Corpus Christi, Texas (high natural fluoride). There was no measurable difference by region (10-6 molar F-). F19 NI4R studies run by Prof. Wallace Brey (Dept. of Chem., U. of F.) indicate that the fluorine is or@anic and the suspected species is fluorocarbon carboxylic acid with a C6 or C7 fluoroalkyl group. Dr. Brey suspects a branched end on the chain, e.g. perfluoro t-butyl. The discussion involved Dr. Guy’s speculatiw~ questions as to where such a "universal" presence of such compounds in human blood could come from. (The compounds are not present in laboratory animals.) These included: i. Biosynthesis from inorganic F-. 2. Biosynthesis from aerosol freons (but th,~y don’t find chlorine). Made Available by 3M for Inspection and Copying as Confidential Information: Subject to Protective Order In Palmer v. 3M, No, C2-04-6309 1118.0001 3MA10034962 Te]ephone Conversation - Dr. Wi] ] ~am Guy A~gust 20, 1975 ~ ag~ -2- 3. Teflon cookware. 4. "Scotchgarded" fabrics. Somewhere he got the information that 3M’s ~luorocarbon carboxyl]c acids are used as surfactants and wanted to know if they were present in "Scotchgard" or other items in general use by the public. We plead ignorance but advised him that "Scotchgard" was a polymeric material not a F.C. acid. Apparently an earlier (’59-’60) study turned up similar quantities of F- in human plasma (not necessarily FC derived); this would presumably antedate the increased use of either "Scotchgard" or "Teflon" cookware. They have done experiments involving water boiled in Teflon cookware with negative results. We suggested obtaining plasma specimens from uncivilized areas, e.g. New Guinea where they don’t use too much "Teflon" cookware or "Scotchgard". Of all the unlikely explanations above, the least unlikely is residual FC 143 (or whatever) we sell to DuPont to polymerize TFE in Teflon cookware. This is still pretty far-fetched. This was not (I hasten to say) suggested to ]]r. Guy. We adopted a position of scientific curiosity and desire to assist in any way possible and suggested tha: our own analytical people might be able to clarify D:$. Brey’s NMR findings (I know Wallace Brey from way back. He is highly respected, conservative and not given to fri~,olous speculations). After we hung up I called CRL Analytical, ta_ked to John McBrady and Richard Newmark. It turns out that Newmark is acquainted with Brey and has, in fact, published in a NMR journal edited by Brey. My recommendation (with J.P.’s concurrence) :.s to get Richard in touch with Brey, obtain spectra for his own interpretation perhaps samples to run on our equipment, etc. in other words, keep scientists talking to scientists in the spirit of cooperative scientific inquiry. On the positive side - if it is confirmed to our satisfaction that everybody is going around with fluorocarbon surfactants in their bloodstreams with no apparent ill-effe<.ts, are there some medical possibilities that would bear l