Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in Personal Care and Household Products: Exposure Risks, Analytical Methods, and Regulatory Challenges for Biomedical Research

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) prevalent in personal care and household products, tailored for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals. It explores the foundational science behind EDC mechanisms and health impacts, reviews advanced methodological approaches for EDC detection and analysis, discusses troubleshooting and optimization strategies for exposure mitigation and regulatory compliance, and offers validation through economic impact assessments and comparative policy analysis. The synthesis of current research and 2025 regulatory trends aims to inform risk assessment models, therapeutic development, and public health policy.

Understanding EDCs: Sources, Mechanisms, and Health Impacts

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are defined as exogenous (non-natural) chemicals, or mixtures of chemicals, that interfere with any aspect of hormone action [1]. These substances can mimic, block, or otherwise alter the normal functioning of the endocrine system, leading to a wide array of adverse health outcomes including reproductive impairment, cognitive deficits, metabolic disorders, and various cancers [2] [3]. The endocrine system operates through complex signaling pathways involving glands that secrete chemical messengers (hormones) which interact with specific receptors to regulate vital functions such as growth, development, reproduction, energy balance, and metabolism [3].

Within the context of personal care and household products research, EDCs present a significant concern due to their prevalence in everyday items. Humans are exposed to these chemicals through direct skin contact, inhalation, and ingestion from products including cosmetics, lotions, shampoos, fragrances, and cleaning agents [2] [1]. The risk of adverse health effects is particularly heightened when exposure occurs during critical developmental windows, such as early gestation and infancy, when organ systems are forming and differentiating [3] [4]. This technical guide examines the core concepts, affected hormonal pathways, and methodological approaches essential for researchers investigating EDCs in consumer products.

Core Concepts in Endocrine Disruption

Definition and Key Characteristics

The Endocrine Society defines an EDC as "an exogenous (non-natural) chemical, or a mixture of chemicals, that interferes with any aspect of hormone action" [1]. A systematic framework for identifying EDCs has been established through ten key characteristics (KCs) that organize mechanistic evidence of endocrine disruption [3]. These characteristics provide researchers with a standardized approach for evaluating potential EDCs and are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals

Key Characteristic	Mechanistic Description	Research Implications
Interacts with or activates hormone receptors	Binds to and activates hormone receptors, mimicking natural hormones [3].	Focus on receptor binding assays and transcriptional activation studies.
Antagonizes hormone receptors	Blocks receptors, preventing natural hormones from binding and functioning [3].	Investigate competitive binding and receptor inhibition assays.
Alters hormone receptor expression	Modifies receptor abundance through changes in expression, internalization, or degradation [3].	Measure receptor mRNA and protein levels across exposure conditions.
Alters signal transduction	Disrupts intracellular signaling pathways in hormone-responsive cells [3].	Analyze secondary messengers, calcium signaling, and kinase activities.
Induces epigenetic modifications	Causes heritable changes in gene expression without altering DNA sequence [2] [3].	Examine DNA methylation, histone modifications, and transgenerational effects.
Alters hormone synthesis	Modifies the production or secretion of hormones from endocrine glands [3].	Assess hormone levels and expression of synthetic enzymes.
Alters hormone transport	Disrupts circulating binding proteins that transport hormones [3].	Evaluate hormone distribution and bioavailability.
Alters hormone metabolism/clearance	Changes the rate of hormone breakdown and elimination [3].	Measure hormone metabolites and metabolic enzyme activities.
Alters fate of hormone-producing cells	Affects proliferation, differentiation, or death of endocrine cells [3].	Investigate cell viability, apoptosis, and differentiation markers.
Alters hormone-regulated systems	Disrupts the function of systems controlled by hormones [3].	Assess physiological endpoints and system-level functions.

EDCs in Personal Care and Household Products

Personal care products (PCPs) represent a significant source of human exposure to EDCs. These include hair care products, skin lotions, cosmetics, fragrances, and cleaning agents that contain various chemicals with endocrine-disrupting properties [1] [5]. The frequency of PCP utilization is a highly varied personal choice influenced by lifestyle circumstances and socioeconomic status, with a single person typically using at least two PCPs in a 24-hour period [1]. Exposure occurs through direct cutaneous interaction, inhalation, and ingestion, with product use and environmental contamination serving as direct exposure pathways [1].

Table 2: Common EDCs in Personal Care and Household Products

EDC Category	Common Sources in PCPs	Primary Health Concerns	Key Hormonal Pathways Affected
Phthalates	Fragrances, nail polish, hair spray, lotions, medical device tubing [2] [5]	ADHD, preterm birth, reproductive impairment [2]	Estrogen and androgen signaling; HPG axis [1]
Parabens	Shampoos, conditioners, lotions, facial cleansers [5]	Reproductive toxicity, endocrine disruption [5]	Estrogen receptor agonism [6]
Bisphenol A (BPA)	Dental sealants, consumer product containers [2] [1]	Lower ovarian reserve, PCOS, implantation failure [1]	Estrogen signaling pathway [1]
PFAS	Cosmetics, lotions, cleansers, nail polish, shaving cream [2] [5]	Immune suppression, metabolic disruption, cancer risk [2] [5]	Multiple endocrine pathways including thyroid [2]
Triclosan	Antimicrobial soaps, personal care products [2]	Antibiotic resistance, endocrine disruption [2]	Thyroid hormone disruption [2]
Fragrances	Most scented PCPs including perfumes, lotions, cleansers [5]	Allergies, reproductive toxicity, cancer [5]	Multiple pathways due to chemical complexity [5]

Research indicates that certain populations may experience disproportionate exposure to EDCs from PCPs. For example, Black women tend to use more hair oils, lotions, chemical relaxers, and leave-in conditioners, which has been linked to endocrine diseases that are more prevalent among Black, Hispanic, and Asian women and girls [5]. A 2025 study of pregnant Taiwanese women found that higher concentrations of methylparaben, ethylparaben, and propylparaben were associated with more frequent use of different PCPs, especially makeup [6].

Affected Hormonal Pathways

Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Gonadal (HPG) Axis

The HPG axis represents a primary target for many EDCs found in personal care products. This neuroendocrine system regulates development, reproduction, and aging through a feedback loop involving the hypothalamus, pituitary gland, and gonads [1]. EDCs can disrupt the HPG axis at multiple levels, interfering with the production, release, transport, metabolism, and elimination of natural hormones [1].

Phthalates, commonly used in fragranced products, have been shown to interfere with the feedback mechanism of the HPG axis and exhibit estrogenic and anti-androgenic activities [1]. Bisphenol A (BPA), while not primarily found in PCPs but relevant due to its presence in consumer product containers, acts as a xenoestrogen that interacts with estrogen receptors and disrupts the estrogen-signaling pathway [1]. These disruptions can lead to clinically significant outcomes including premature thelarche, endometriosis, infertility, and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) [1].

The following diagram illustrates the key pathways through which EDCs disrupt normal endocrine function:

Thyroid Hormone Axis

EDCs can significantly disrupt thyroid hormone function through multiple mechanisms. Chemicals such as PCBs, perchlorate, and triclosan interfere with thyroid hormone synthesis, transport, metabolism, and receptor function [2] [7]. The thyroid axis plays a critical role in regulating metabolism, brain development, and energy balance, making it particularly vulnerable to EDC exposure during early development [7].

Specific EDCs like perchlorate compete with iodide for uptake by the sodium-iodide symporter in the thyroid gland, thereby disrupting thyroid hormone synthesis [3]. PCBs and their metabolites can activate human thyroid hormone receptor-β-mediated transcription, while other EDCs may prevent the internalization of the TSH receptor [3]. These disruptions can lead to metabolic disorders, neurodevelopmental deficits, and growth abnormalities [2] [7].

Metabolic Pathways

EDCs have been demonstrated to disrupt metabolic homeostasis through several mechanisms, including changes to peroxisome proliferator-modulated pathways, adipogenesis, pancreatic β-cell function, and hypothalamic neuropeptides [1]. Long-term exposure to arsenic, for example, can disrupt metabolism and increase the risk of diabetes and other metabolic disorders [2]. A 2025 animal study presented at the Endocrine Society's annual meeting found that early-life exposure to EDCs resulted in physical changes to brain regions important for controlling food intake and responding to reward, leading to a higher preference for sugary and fatty foods later in life [4].

The metabolic disruptor, tolylfluanid, exemplifies how EDCs can impair insulin action by reducing insulin receptor substrate 1 phosphorylation and downstream signaling [3]. Additionally, BPA has been shown to block low glucose-induced calcium signaling in isolated pancreatic glucagon-secreting α-cells from adult male mice, further demonstrating the potential of EDCs to disrupt metabolic regulation [3].

Experimental Methodologies and Research Tools

Standardized Testing Approaches

Internationally agreed testing methods have been developed for the most important endocrine pathways in mammals and fish known to be sensitive to endocrine disruption, particularly those relating to estrogen, androgen, and thyroid hormones as well as steroidogenesis [8]. The guidance drafted by EFSA and ECHA provides a framework for identifying substances with endocrine disrupting properties in pesticides and biocides, emphasizing a weight-of-evidence approach that considers all relevant scientific evidence [8].

Research in the field of endocrine disruption utilizes integrated, high-throughput testing strategies to detect substances that could disrupt endocrine functions by interacting with hormones like estrogen and androgen [2]. The multi-agency Tox21 program, in which NIEHS participates, is developing and applying new models and tools using robotics to predict endocrine disrupting activity for environmental substances [2].

Key Research Reagents and Methodologies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Methodologies for EDC Investigation

Research Tool Category	Specific Examples	Application in EDC Research
In vitro receptor assays	ERα, ERβ, AR, TR binding and transactivation assays [3]	Screening for receptor interaction (KC1) and antagonism (KC2)
Cell signaling assays	Calcium signaling, cAMP detection, kinase activity assays [3]	Assessment of signal transduction alterations (KC4)
Gene expression analysis	qPCR, RNA sequencing, microarrays [3]	Evaluation of receptor expression changes (KC3) and system-wide effects (KC10)
Epigenetic analysis	DNA methylation arrays, histone modification ChIP-seq [2] [3]	Investigation of transgenerational effects and epigenetic modifications (KC5)
Hormone measurement	ELISA, LC-MS/MS, RIA [6] [3]	Quantification of hormone level changes in serum and tissues (KC6, KC7)
High-throughput screening	Tox21 robotic platform, high-content imaging [2]	Large-scale screening of chemical libraries for endocrine activity
Metabolomic approaches	LC-MS, GC-MS metabolic profiling [3]	Assessment of hormone metabolism and clearance (KC8)

Advanced Research Models

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has been pioneering research on the health effects of endocrine disruptors for more than three decades, developing new models and tools to better understand how endocrine disrupters work [2]. These include conducting animal and human health research to define linkages between exposure to endocrine disrupters and health effects, developing new assessments and biomarkers of exposure and toxicity, and identifying new intervention and prevention strategies [2].

The following diagram illustrates a comprehensive experimental workflow for evaluating potential EDCs:

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals present a significant challenge to public health, particularly in the context of personal care and household products where exposure is widespread and often inadvertent. The complex nature of endocrine disruption requires sophisticated research approaches that can capture effects across multiple hormonal pathways, life stages, and exposure scenarios. The framework of key characteristics provides a systematic method for identifying and evaluating EDCs, while advanced experimental models and high-throughput screening platforms enable comprehensive assessment of these chemicals.

For researchers investigating EDCs in consumer products, understanding the core concepts of endocrine disruption and the specific hormonal pathways affected is essential for designing relevant studies and interpreting results. Future research directions should focus on understanding mixture effects, low-dose responses, sensitive exposure windows, and developing effective intervention strategies to reduce exposure, particularly among vulnerable populations. As scientific knowledge in this area continues to evolve, the research tools and conceptual frameworks outlined in this guide provide a foundation for advancing our understanding of how chemicals in everyday products may disrupt endocrine function and impact human health.

Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) are exogenous substances that interfere with the synthesis, secretion, transport, binding, action, or elimination of natural hormones in the body, thereby disrupting homeostasis and proper functioning of the endocrine system [9]. The widespread use of EDCs in consumer products has led to ubiquitous human exposure through multiple routes, including dermal absorption, ingestion, and inhalation. This technical guide provides an in-depth analysis of four major EDC classes—bisphenols, phthalates, parabens, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—with a focus on their occurrence in personal care and household products, analytical methodologies for quantification, molecular mechanisms of action, and associated health risks. Understanding these aspects is crucial for researchers and drug development professionals working to assess exposure risks and develop mitigation strategies.

EDC Classes: Properties, Occurrence, and Health Effects

Bisphenols

Chemical Properties and Usage: Bisphenol A (BPA) is a synthetic organic compound primarily used in the production of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. Its chemical structure, featuring two phenol rings, enables estrogenic activity [10]. Due to increasing regulatory restrictions on BPA, replacement chemicals such as bisphenol S (BPS), bisphenol F (BPF), bisphenol AF (BPAF), and tetramethyl BPF (TMBPF) have been introduced, though these structural analogs often demonstrate similar toxicological profiles [11] [12].

Occurrence in Consumer Products: BPA is commonly found in food contact materials, including the inner linings of metal cans, plastic containers, and thermal paper [9]. Recent studies have detected BPA in plant-based beverages (32% of samples) [13] and soft drinks packaged in both polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles and cans, with concentrations varying significantly based on packaging type and pH levels [10].

Health Effects: BPA acts as an estrogen receptor agonist, glucocorticoid receptor modulator, and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) activator, interfering with multiple hormonal axes [9] [11]. Epidemiological and experimental studies have linked BPA exposure to metabolic disorders, obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and reproductive impairments [11]. A 2023 EFSA review substantially lowered the tolerable daily intake (TDI) for BPA from 4 μg/kg bw/day to 0.2 ng/kg bw/day, reflecting increased understanding of its immunotoxicity [13] [10].

Table 1: Bisphenol Occurrence in Beverages and Food Products

Product Category	Sample Size	BPA Detection Frequency	Concentration Range	Analytical Method	Reference
Plant-based beverages	34 samples	32% of samples	Not specified	LC-ESI-QqQ-MS/MS	[13]
Soft drinks (Various packaging)	48 samples	100% of samples	0.45 to 5.10 ppb	MSPE-GC/MS	[10]
Soft drinks (Cola flavor)	Not specified	Not specified	Average: 2.53 ppb	MSPE-GC/MS	[10]
Soft drinks (1500 mL volume)	Not specified	Not specified	Average: 2.87 ppb	MSPE-GC/MS	[10]

Phthalates

Chemical Properties and Usage: Phthalates are diesters of phthalic acid used primarily as plasticizers to increase flexibility and durability of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products. They also function as solvents and fragrance stabilizers in cosmetic and personal care products [14] [9]. Common phthalates include diethyl phthalate (DEP), di-n-butyl phthalate (DnBP), diisobutyl phthalate (DiBP), and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP).

Occurrence in Consumer Products: Phthalates are prevalent in cosmetics and personal care products, with DEP detected most frequently (103 out of 252 products) at concentrations up to 25,542 μg/g (2.6%) in fragrances [14]. DnBP is predominantly found in nail polishes at concentrations up to 24,304 μg/g (2.4%) [14]. Phthalates are also present in food packaging materials, with migration potential enhanced by heat and prolonged storage [9].

Health Effects: Phthalates exhibit estrogenic and anti-androgenic activities, disrupting reproductive development and function [9]. Epidemiological studies associate phthalate exposure with preterm birth, fetal growth restriction, earlier puberty timing in girls, and reduced bone mineral density in adolescents [9] [15]. The "cocktail effect" of mixed phthalate exposure demonstrates enhanced toxicity compared to individual compounds [9].

Table 2: Phthalate Concentrations in Personal Care Products

Phthalate Type	Detection Frequency (Total n=252)	Maximum Concentration	Primary Product Categories	Reference
Diethyl phthalate (DEP)	103 products	25,542 μg/g (2.6%)	Fragrances, lotions, skin cleansers	[14]
Di-n-butyl phthalate (DnBP)	15 products	24,304 μg/g (2.4%)	Nail polishes, hair sprays, mousses	[14]
Diisobutyl phthalate (DiBP)	9 products	<10 μg/g	Various products	[14]
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)	8 products	Not specified	Various products	[14]
Dimethyl phthalate (DMP)	1 product	Not specified	Not specified	[14]

Parabens

Chemical Properties and Usage: Parabens are alkyl esters of p-hydroxybenzoic acid widely used as antimicrobial preservatives in cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and food products due to their effectiveness and low cost [9] [16].

Occurrence in Consumer Products: Parabens are ubiquitous in personal care products, including lotions, creams, cosmetics, and cleansers, where they prevent microbial growth and extend product shelf life [9].

Health Effects: Parabens exhibit estrogenic activity and have been associated with developmental and reproductive toxicity in animal models [16]. However, some effects observed in animals have not been consistently confirmed in human studies [16]. Emerging evidence suggests potential links between paraben exposure and obesity, hormone-related cancers, and possible impacts on immune and nervous systems, though more research is needed to characterize human health risks fully [16].

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Chemical Properties and Usage: PFAS are synthetic chemicals characterized by strong carbon-fluorine bonds, imparting oil and water resistance, thermal stability, and surfactant properties [17] [18]. Key compounds include perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS).

Occurrence in Consumer Products: PFAS are used in food packaging, stain-resistant carpets and fabrics, non-stick cookware, and fire-fighting foams [17] [18]. Their persistence in the environment has led to widespread contamination of water supplies.

Health Effects: PFAS exposure has been linked to immunosuppression, thyroid dysfunction, kidney and testicular cancer, and developmental effects [17] [18]. In 2024, the U.S. EPA established legally enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for six PFAS in drinking water, including 4.0 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS, reflecting health-based MCLGs (Maximum Contaminant Level Goals) of zero for these compounds [18].

Table 3: EPA Regulatory Standards for PFAS in Drinking Water

PFAS Compound	Final MCLG	Final MCL (Enforceable)	Compliance Timeline	Reference
PFOA	Zero	4.0 ppt	2029 (with possible extension to 2031)	[17] [18]
PFOS	Zero	4.0 ppt	2029 (with possible extension to 2031)	[17] [18]
PFHxS	10 ppt	10 ppt	Under reconsideration	[17] [18]
PFNA	10 ppt	10 ppt	Under reconsideration	[17] [18]
HFPO-DA (GenX)	10 ppt	10 ppt	Under reconsideration	[17] [18]
Mixtures (PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, PFBS)	1 (Hazard Index)	1 (Hazard Index)	Under reconsideration	[17] [18]

Analytical Methodologies for EDC Assessment

Sample Preparation Techniques

Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE): SPE using Strata X-PRO cartridges (500 mg/6 mL) is effective for isolating bisphenols from beverage matrices. The protocol involves conditioning with methanol and ultrapure water, sample loading, washing with water, and elution with organic solvents [13]. For plant-based beverages, sample pretreatment includes vortex mixing, sonication, centrifugation, and supernatant recovery prior to SPE [13].

Magnetic Solid-Phase Extraction (MSPE): MSPE utilizing magnetic multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) functionalized with iron oxide (Fe₃O₄) provides efficient extraction of BPA from soft drinks. The magnetic adsorbent is prepared through acid functionalization of MWCNTs followed by assembly of magnetic nanoparticles [10]. This approach facilitates easy separation of the adsorbent using an external magnetic field [10].

Instrumental Analysis

Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS): LC with electrospray ionization and triple-quadrupole tandem MS (LC-ESI-QqQ-MS/MS) provides high sensitivity and selectivity for quantifying bisphenols and phthalate metabolites in biological and environmental samples [13]. Chromatographic separation typically employs C18 columns with methanol/water mobile phases [13] [15].

Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS): GC-MS is widely used for BPA determination in beverage samples following derivatization [10]. The MSPE-GC/MS method enables detection limits in the parts-per-trillion range, essential for assessing compliance with stringent regulatory standards [10].

Biomarker Assessment in Epidemiological Studies

Urinary Metabolite Analysis: Phthalate and replacement biomarkers are quantified in urine using enzymatic deconjugation, automated online solid-phase extraction, separation with high-performance liquid chromatography, and detection with isotope-dilution tandem mass spectrometry [15]. Specific gravity measurement corrects for urine dilution [15].

Questionnaire-Based Exposure Assessment: Product use questionnaires document personal care product application in the prior 24 hours, including fragrance status [15]. Latent class analysis identifies patterns of product use and associates them with biomarker concentrations [15].

Experimental Workflows

Bisphenol Analysis in Beverages

EDC Mechanism of Action

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Research Materials for EDC Analysis

Reagent/Material	Specifications	Application	Reference
Strata X-PRO SPE cartridges	500 mg/6 mL	Extraction and clean-up of bisphenols from beverage samples	[13]
Magnetic MWCNTs-Fe₃O₄	30-60 nm diameter, 5-30 μm length	MSPE of BPA from soft drinks	[10]
Bisphenol standards	BPA (≥99%), BPB (≥98%), BPS (≥98%)	Analytical reference standards for quantification	[13]
Phthalate metabolite standards	MEP, MBP, MEHP, etc.	Isotope-labeled internal standards for urine analysis	[15]
HPLC-grade solvents	Methanol, acetonitrile (≥99.9%)	Mobile phase and sample preparation	[13] [10]
Enzymatic hydrolysis reagents	β-glucuronidase/sulfatase	Deconjugation of phase II metabolites in urine	[15]

The four major EDC classes—bisphenols, phthalates, parabens, and PFAS—present significant challenges for public health and regulatory science due to their prevalence in consumer products, persistence in the environment, and potential for endocrine disruption. Advanced analytical methodologies enable precise quantification of these compounds and their metabolites in complex matrices, supporting robust exposure assessment and epidemiological research. The continuing identification of "regrettable substitutions" emphasizes the need for comprehensive safety assessment of replacement chemicals before their widespread adoption. Future research should prioritize the development of high-throughput screening methods, investigation of mixture effects, and longitudinal studies to characterize the health impacts of chronic low-dose EDC exposure throughout the lifespan.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are exogenous substances that interfere with the normal functioning of the endocrine system by mimicking, blocking, or altering the synthesis, transport, metabolism, or elimination of natural hormones [19]. The endocrine system is particularly vulnerable during critical developmental windows, with EDC exposure linked to numerous health issues including reproductive disorders, metabolic diseases, neurodevelopmental deficits, and various cancers [2] [20] [21]. The ubiquitous presence of EDCs in personal care and household products creates multiple exposure pathways that researchers must understand to assess cumulative risk accurately. With nearly 85,000 human-made chemicals in existence, and an estimated 1,000 or more possessing endocrine-disrupting properties, the scientific community faces significant challenges in characterizing exposure and health implications [2] [22].

The three primary exposure routes—dermal absorption, inhalation, and oral intake—form complex pathways through which EDCs enter biological systems. These pathways are not mutually exclusive; individuals typically experience simultaneous exposure through multiple routes, creating aggregate effects that complicate toxicological assessment [23]. Understanding the kinetics of each exposure route is fundamental for designing relevant experimental protocols, interpreting biomonitoring data, and developing effective public health interventions. This technical guide examines these exposure pathways within the context of personal care and household products, providing researchers with methodologies and frameworks for investigating EDC exposure and its health implications.

Dermal Absorption of EDCs

Mechanisms and Significance of Dermal Exposure

Dermal absorption represents a significant exposure pathway for EDCs present in personal care products and household items that regularly contact skin. This route is particularly concerning because it bypasses first-pass liver metabolism, allowing compounds to enter systemic circulation without hepatic modification [24]. The skin, being the largest organ of the human body, presents a substantial surface area for chemical absorption, especially for compounds with appropriate physicochemical properties that facilitate transdermal penetration.

The process of dermal absorption occurs through passive diffusion, influenced by factors such as molecular size, lipophilicity, and the integrity of the stratum corneum. Research has demonstrated that EDCs can be efficiently absorbed through the skin, with some compounds exhibiting prolonged systemic circulation compared to dietary exposures. A critical study on bisphenol A (BPA) and bisphenol S (BPS) found that after manual handling of thermal paper receipts, urinary excretion of BPA increased linearly for two days, with some participants still having detectable levels after one week. In contrast, the same individuals cleared all dietary BPA within 24 hours, highlighting the distinct toxicokinetics of dermal versus oral exposure [24].

Experimental Approaches for Assessing Dermal Absorption

In Vitro Skin Models

Table 1: In Vitro Models for Dermal Absorption Studies

Model Type	Description	Applications	Advantages	Limitations
3D-Human Skin Equivalents	Reconstructed human epidermis from cell lines	Permeation studies for PFAS, bisphenols, phthalates	High throughput; ethical alternative to animal testing	May not fully replicate in vivo complexity
Franz Diffusion Cells	Two-chamber system with skin membrane between donor and receptor compartments	Quantifying absorption rates and permeation coefficients	Controlled conditions; reproducible results	Requires excised skin (human/animal)
Pig Skin Models	Porcine skin due to similarity to human skin structure	Toxicokinetic studies of EDCs	High anatomical and physiological similarity to human skin	Limited availability of fresh tissue

Investigators have employed in vitro human skin cell models to compare the dermal penetration characteristics of different EDCs. In one methodology, researchers used such models to evaluate the percutaneous absorption of BPA versus BPS, finding that BPA crossed skin more efficiently than BPS. This was consistent with companion experiments in which human volunteers handled simulated and authentic store receipts [24]. For per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), 3D-human skin equivalent models have emerged as a viable approach to measure dermal uptake, though this remains an understudied area despite the detection of PFAS in many products that contact skin [25].

Human Volunteer Studies

Controlled human exposure studies provide critical data on the real-world significance of dermal absorption. In a key investigation, five male volunteers handled simulated (for BPA) and authentic (for BPS) store receipts for 5 minutes each. Despite lower percutaneous absorption of BPS, the average percentage of free BPS in the men's urine was higher (6.9%) than that of free BPA (2.7%) up to 48 hours after exposure. The researchers concluded that less BPS was metabolized in the body, resulting in a higher proportion of biologically active compound [24]. This experimental design demonstrates an approach for validating in vitro findings with human biomonitoring data.

Key EDCs with Dermal Absorption Potential

Table 2: EDCs with Significant Dermal Absorption Potential

EDC Class	Example Compounds	Common Sources	Research Findings
Bisphenols	BPA, BPS	Thermal paper receipts, plastics	BPA crosses skin more efficiently than BPS; prolonged systemic circulation post-dermal exposure [24]
Phthalates	DEHP, DEP, DBP	Cosmetics, fragrances, personal care products	Detected in urine following dermal application of products; associated with altered hormone levels [22] [19]
PFAS	PFOA, PFOS	Stain-resistant textiles, waterproof clothing	Preliminary evidence suggests dermal uptake potential; limited studies to date [25]
Fragrance Components	Geraniol, synthetic musks	Perfumes, lotions, soaps	Screening identifies potential endocrine activity; aggregate exposure requires assessment [23]

Inhalation Exposure to EDCs

Atmospheric EDCs and Exposure Dynamics

Inhalation represents a significant exposure route for atmospheric EDCs present as particulate matter and gaseous vapors [26]. These compounds enter indoor and outdoor air through various mechanisms, including volatilization from products, combustion processes, and aerosolization during product use. Once inhaled, EDCs can directly enter the bloodstream through the extensive alveolar surface area in the lungs, bypassing some protective barriers present in the gastrointestinal tract.

The atmosphere serves as a transport medium for EDCs, enabling their distribution far from original sources. This is particularly true for semi-volatile compounds that can exist in both gaseous and particulate phases. Phthalates, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), brominated flame retardants (BFRs), dioxins, alkylphenols (APs), and perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) have all been identified in atmospheric samples [26]. The fate and half-life of these atmospheric EDCs depend on their physicochemical properties and environmental conditions, with persistent organic pollutants (POPs) exhibiting long-range transport capabilities that result in contamination of even remote regions.

Methodologies for Assessing Inhalation Exposure

Air Sampling Techniques

• Active Air Sampling: Uses pumps to draw known volumes of air through collection media (e.g., filters, sorbents) over defined time periods. This approach allows for quantitative analysis of EDC concentrations in specific microenvironments.

• Passive Air Sampling: Relies on the natural diffusion of airborne chemicals to collection media without mechanical assistance. These samplers provide time-weighted average concentrations and are valuable for assessing chronic, low-level exposures in indoor environments.

• Personal Air Monitoring: Involves study participants wearing compact sampling equipment to measure individual exposure levels during daily activities. This method captures personal inhalation exposure more accurately than stationary sampling.

Correlating Air Concentrations with Biomarkers

Advanced studies combine air monitoring with biomonitoring to establish dose-response relationships. For example, researchers have measured PBDEs in indoor air and dust samples while simultaneously analyzing serum or urine samples from study participants. Such approaches have revealed associations between inhalation exposure and body burden of these flame retardants. Similarly, occupational studies have detected higher urinary BPS levels in cashiers after their shifts compared with pre-shift levels and with non-cashiers, suggesting inhalation of particles from thermal paper may contribute to body burden [24].

Oral Intake of EDCs

Dietary and Non-Dietary Ingestion Pathways

Oral intake represents a major exposure route for EDCs, occurring through both dietary and non-dietary pathways. Dietary exposure happens when EDCs migrate from food packaging, processing equipment, or contaminated environments into food and beverages. Non-dietary ingestion occurs through hand-to-mouth transfer of EDCs from contaminated surfaces or dust, particularly relevant for children with developing behaviors and higher hand-to-mouth contact frequency.

The gastrointestinal tract presents a complex environment for EDC absorption, with the potential for extensive metabolism by gut microbes and enteric enzymes that can either activate or detoxify compounds. Research comparing different exposure routes has revealed important toxicokinetic differences. A study on piglets, whose toxicokinetic pathways are similar to humans, estimated that systemic exposure to BPS was about 250 times higher than to BPA after oral dosing due to reduced metabolism [24]. This finding has significant implications for the use of BPS as a BPA substitute in food and beverage containers.

Methodologies for Assessing Oral Exposure

Dietary Assessment and Food Sampling

Comprehensive assessment of dietary EDC exposure involves multiple approaches:

• Duplicate Diet Studies: Participants prepare duplicate portions of all foods and beverages consumed during a study period, with samples analyzed for EDC content.

• Market Basket Surveys: Researchers purchase representative foods from retail outlets and analyze composite samples to estimate population-level dietary exposure.

• Food Packaging Migration Studies: Laboratory simulations measure the leaching of EDCs from food contact materials under various conditions (temperature, pH, fat content).

Biomonitoring and Pharmacokinetic Modeling

Biomonitoring of urine, blood, or other matrices provides integrated measures of exposure from all routes, but can be combined with exposure diary data to attribute proportions to oral intake. Pharmacokinetic models help interpret biomonitoring data by accounting for absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion parameters specific to oral exposure. For instance, the relatively short half-lives of many EDCs (e.g., BPA, phthalates) in the body indicate regular, ongoing exposure, likely dominated by dietary sources for the general population [19].

Comparative Analysis of Exposure Routes

Relative Contribution of Different Exposure Pathways

Table 3: Comparative Analysis of EDC Exposure Routes

Exposure Route	Key EDCs	Major Sources	Absorption Characteristics	Toxicokinetic Considerations
Dermal Absorption	Bisphenols, Phthalates, PFAS	Personal care products, cosmetics, thermal paper, textiles	Bypasses first-pass metabolism; prolonged systemic circulation	Slower absorption but potentially longer half-lives for some compounds
Inhalation	Phthalates, PBDEs, PAHs, PCBs	Indoor dust, airborne particles, aerosols, fragrances	Rapid entry via alveolar membrane; direct to bloodstream	Particle size determines deposition; gas-particle partitioning affects dose
Oral Intake	Bisphenols, Phthalates, Pesticides, PFAS	Food, beverages, contaminated hands, dust	First-pass liver metabolism; possible enteric activation	Extensive gut microbiome interaction; bioavailability varies by compound

The relative contribution of each exposure pathway varies significantly by compound, population subgroup, and individual product use patterns. For the general population, dietary intake typically represents the dominant exposure route for many EDCs such as bisphenols and phthalates [2]. However, for specific subgroups—such as cashiers handling thermal paper or workers in certain manufacturing sectors—dermal or inhalation routes may predominate for particular compounds [24]. Children typically have higher non-dietary ingestion exposure due to hand-to-mouth behaviors, while inhalation exposure may be more significant for individuals with high use of scented products or those living in heavily contaminated indoor environments.

Aggregate Exposure Assessment

A critical challenge in EDC research is assessing aggregate exposure—the combined exposure to a single chemical across all routes and sources. For example, phthalate exposure can occur through dietary intake (food contact materials), dermal absorption (personal care products), and inhalation (indoor air and dust). Researchers must develop methodologies that integrate exposure across all pathways to accurately characterize total body burden and associated health risks [23]. This is particularly important for chemicals used in diverse product categories, where regulatory actions targeting one exposure pathway may inadvertently increase reliance on products that contribute to exposure through alternative pathways.

The Researcher's Toolkit: Methods and Materials

Analytical Methods for EDC Quantification

Accurate measurement of EDCs in environmental and biological samples requires sophisticated analytical methods with high sensitivity and specificity. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) has emerged as the gold standard for quantifying many EDCs in biological matrices due to its ability to measure low concentrations in complex samples. For volatile EDCs, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) remains the preferred analytical technique.

Sample preparation techniques are equally critical, with solid-phase extraction (SPE) commonly used to concentrate analytes and remove matrix interferents. For biological monitoring, enzymatic deconjugation is often necessary to measure both free and conjugated (metabolized) forms of EDCs, providing insights into metabolic fate and biologically active concentrations.

Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 4: Essential Research Materials for EDC Exposure Studies

Category	Specific Items	Research Application	Considerations
Analytical Standards	Isotope-labeled EDCs (e.g., 13C-BPA, d4-phthalates)	Internal standards for mass spectrometry quantification	Essential for accurate quantification; should be added early in sample processing
Biological Matrices	Synthetic urine, serum, certified reference materials	Method validation, quality control	Ensure consistency across experiments; certified materials provide benchmark values
Skin Models	3D-human skin equivalents (e.g., EpiDerm, EpiSkin)	In vitro dermal permeation studies	More physiologically relevant than animal skin; reproducible results
Sampling Equipment	Passive air samplers, personal air pumps, dust collection filters	Environmental and personal exposure assessment	Choice depends on study design (personal vs. stationary monitoring)
Cell-Based Assays	Reporter gene assays (ERα, AR, TR), hormone receptor binding assays	Mechanistic studies of endocrine activity	Provide insights into molecular mechanisms of disruption beyond exposure assessment

Understanding the primary exposure routes of dermal absorption, inhalation, and oral intake of EDCs from personal care and household products is fundamental to assessing health risks and developing effective intervention strategies. Each exposure pathway exhibits distinct characteristics in terms of absorption efficiency, metabolic processing, and toxicokinetics, necessitating route-specific research methodologies. The complex interplay between these pathways results in aggregate exposure that must be considered in both risk assessment and regulatory decision-making.

Future research priorities should include: (1) developing more sophisticated in vitro models that better recapitulate human exposure scenarios; (2) advancing non-targeted analytical methods to identify previously unrecognized EDCs; (3) conducting longitudinal studies to characterize exposure variability and cumulative effects; and (4) elucidating the health implications of simultaneous exposure to multiple EDCs through diverse routes. As research in this field advances, it will provide the scientific foundation for evidence-based policies that protect public health while promoting safer chemical alternatives.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are exogenous substances that can interfere with the normal function of the hormonal system, leading to adverse health effects in humans and wildlife [2]. These chemicals are ubiquitous in personal care and household products, creating widespread exposure through dermal contact, inhalation, and ingestion [1] [27]. The molecular mechanisms through which EDCs exert their effects are complex and multifaceted, primarily involving receptor binding interference, epigenetic alterations, and induction of oxidative stress. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for researchers, toxicologists, and drug development professionals working to assess the health risks of these compounds and develop interventions to mitigate their effects. This technical guide provides an in-depth analysis of these core mechanisms, framed within the context of EDC exposure from consumer products, with specific methodological guidance for researchers investigating these pathways.

Receptor Binding Interference

EDCs primarily disrupt endocrine function by directly interfering with hormone receptors, their expression, and downstream signaling pathways. These interactions can occur at various levels of the hormonal signaling cascade, leading to widespread physiological consequences.

Nuclear Receptor Interactions

A fundamental mechanism of EDC action involves direct interaction with nuclear hormone receptors. These chemicals can act as receptor agonists or antagonists, mimicking or blocking the actions of endogenous hormones. The structural similarity of many EDCs to natural steroid hormones, such as estrogen (E2) and androgen, enables them to bind to steroid hormone receptors including the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and androgen receptor (AR) with an affinity approximately 1000-fold lower than that of natural hormones [28].

• Receptor Agonism: EDCs like bisphenol A (BPA) and diethylstilbestrol (DES) function as xenoestrogens, binding to and activating estrogen receptors. This inappropriate receptor activation can stimulate ERα-dependent transcriptional signaling pathways, leading to altered gene expression and cellular responses [28] [3]. For example, DES was historically prescribed to prevent miscarriage but was later identified as a carcinogen that increases breast cancer risk in exposed mothers and daughters [28].
• Receptor Antagonism: Some EDCs act as receptor antagonists, inhibiting or blocking the effects of endogenous hormones. For instance, organochlorine pesticides like dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene inhibit androgen binding to the androgen receptor (AR) and block androgen-dependent transactivation, potentially leading to demasculinization of male fetuses and genital tract malformations [3].
• Receptor Expression Modulation: EDCs can also modulate hormone receptor expression, internalization, and degradation. BPA has been shown to alter the expression of estrogen, oxytocin, and vasopressin receptors in specific brain nuclei, while di(2‐ethylhexyl) phthalate decreases mineralocorticoid receptor expression in mouse testis [3].

Non-Genomic Signaling Pathways

Beyond classical genomic signaling, EDCs can rapidly activate non-genomic pathways through membrane-associated receptors. These effects can occur within minutes of exposure, in contrast to the hours required for genomic pathways to be established [28]. Octyl-phenol (OP), nonyl-phenol (NP), and BPA exposure have been shown to induce alternative mechanisms related to the activation of ERK1/2, Akt1/2/3, and G-proteins [28]. This non-genomic signaling involves crosstalk between membrane estrogen receptors and other signaling pathways, such as the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), leading to phosphorylation-mediated activation of secondary messengers [28] [3].

Table 1: Key Characteristics of EDCs Related to Receptor Interference

Key Characteristic	Molecular Mechanism	Example EDCs	Experimental Assays
Interacts with or activates hormone receptors [3]	Binds to and activates nuclear or membrane hormone receptors	BPA, DES, DDT [28] [3]	ER/AR transactivation assays, receptor binding assays [28]
Antagonizes hormone receptors [3]	Blocks endogenous hormones from binding to their receptors	Organochlorine pesticides, vinclozolin [3]	Competitive binding assays, co-activator recruitment assays
Alters hormone receptor expression [3]	Modulates receptor synthesis, internalization, or degradation	BPA, phthalates [3]	qPCR (mRNA), western blot (protein), immunohistochemistry
Alters signal transduction [28] [3]	Activates kinase pathways or secondary messengers	OP, NP, BPA [28]	Phospho-kinase arrays, calcium flux assays, cAMP detection

The diagram below illustrates the core concepts of EDC interference with hormone signaling pathways, highlighting both genomic and non-genomic mechanisms.

Epigenetic Alterations

Epigenetic regulation represents a crucial mechanism through which EDCs exert long-lasting effects, particularly when exposure occurs during critical developmental windows. These modifications can alter gene expression patterns without changing the underlying DNA sequence and may even be transmitted transgenerationally [29] [30].

DNA Methylation

DNA methylation involves the addition of a methyl group to cytosine bases, primarily at CpG dinucleotides, leading to gene silencing when it occurs in promoter regions. EDCs can disrupt the delicate patterns of DNA methylation established during embryonic development, a process involving two main waves of global demethylation and remethylation [29].

• Mechanisms of Disruption: EDCs such as BPA, phthalates, dioxins, and DES have been shown to alter DNA methylation patterns in female reproductive tissues and other target organs [30]. These changes can lead to the altered expression of genes critical for ovarian function, implantation, and placental development. The enzymes responsible for methylation (DNA methyltransferases - DNMTs) and demethylation (TET methylcytosine dioxygenases) are key molecular targets for EDCs [29].
• Specific Gene Targets: Research has identified specific imprinted genes, including ASCL2 and HOXA10, whose methylation status is vulnerable to EDC exposure [30]. These alterations can contribute to reproductive disorders such as endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and infertility.

Histone Modifications and Non-Coding RNAs

Beyond DNA methylation, EDCs induce other forms of epigenetic regulation, including post-translational modifications to histone proteins and alterations in non-coding RNA expression.

• Histone Modifications: Chromatin structure and accessibility are regulated through histone modifications such as acetylation, methylation, and phosphorylation. EDCs can alter the activity of enzymes responsible for these modifications, including histone acetyltransferases (HATs) and histone deacetylases (HDACs), thereby changing the transcriptional activity of genes [29] [30].
• Non-Coding RNAs: MicroRNAs (miRNAs) and other non-coding RNAs represent another layer of epigenetic regulation impacted by EDCs. These small RNA molecules can regulate gene expression by binding to target mRNAs and preventing their translation. EDC exposure has been associated with altered expression of specific miRNAs involved in reproductive functions and disease pathways [30].

Table 2: Epigenetic Mechanisms Modified by EDCs

Epigenetic Mechanism	Molecular Consequence	Example EDCs	Associated Health Effects
DNA Methylation [29] [30]	Altered gene silencing/imprinting; changes in promoter activity	BPA, phthalates, DES, dioxins, PCBs [29] [30]	Reproductive disorders, infertility, cancer, metabolic diseases [29] [30]
Histone Modifications [29] [30]	Changed chromatin structure & gene accessibility	BPA, vinclozolin [29] [30]	Transgenerational effects, developmental abnormalities [29]
Non-Coding RNA Expression [29] [30]	Altered post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression	BPA, phthalates [30]	Uterine fibroids, endometrial hyperplasia, recurrent pregnancy loss [30]

Experimental Approaches for Epigenetic Analysis

Researchers investigating epigenetic changes induced by EDCs employ a variety of sophisticated techniques:

• DNA Methylation Analysis: Bisulfite sequencing is considered the gold standard for detecting 5-methylcytosine at single-base resolution. This method involves treating DNA with bisulfite, which converts unmethylated cytosines to uracils while leaving methylated cytosines unchanged, allowing for their precise mapping [29].
• Histone Modification Profiling: Chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing (ChIP-seq) enables genome-wide mapping of histone modifications and transcription factor binding sites. This technique uses specific antibodies to pull down DNA fragments associated with particular histone marks [29].
• Non-Coding RNA Analysis: High-throughput sequencing technologies (RNA-seq) and quantitative PCR (qPCR) are used to profile and validate changes in miRNA and other non-coding RNA expression following EDC exposure [29].

The workflow for a comprehensive epigenetic investigation of EDC effects is shown below.

Oxidative Stress

Oxidative stress represents a significant non-receptor-mediated mechanism of EDC toxicity. Many EDCs can induce the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), leading to cellular damage and dysfunction across multiple organ systems, including the respiratory system [31].

Mechanisms of ROS Induction

EDCs disrupt the sensitive redox balance in cells through several interconnected pathways:

• Mitochondrial Dysfunction: Several EDCs directly damage mitochondria, the primary cellular source of energy production and also a major site of ROS generation. Mitochondrial dysfunction enhances the production of injurious molecules, contributing to oxidative damage and cell death [31].
• Interference with Antioxidant Defenses: EDCs can deplete cellular antioxidant defenses, including enzymes such as superoxide dismutase, catalase, and glutathione peroxidase, thereby reducing the cell's capacity to neutralize ROS [31].
• Activation of Pro-Oxidant Enzymes: Some EDCs can enhance the activity of enzymes that generate ROS, such as NADPH oxidases, further contributing to oxidative stress [31].

Consequences of Oxidative Stress

The oxidative damage induced by EDCs has far-reaching consequences for cellular and tissue function:

• Macromolecular Damage: Highly reactive oxygen species attack and damage cellular macromolecules, including DNA (causing strand breaks and base modifications), proteins (leading to misfolding and loss of function), and lipids (inducing peroxidation of cell membranes) [31].
• Inflammation and Remodeling: Oxidative stress activates key transcription factors such as NF-κB and AP-1, resulting in the increased production of inflammatory mediators and the initiation of chronic inflammatory processes [31]. In the lungs, this can lead to tissue remodeling, thickening of alveolar basement membranes, and decreased lung compliance [31].
• Blood-Air Barrier Disruption: In the respiratory system, EDC-induced oxidative stress can compromise the integrity of the blood-air barrier, increasing its permeability and enhancing the penetration of pathogens and toxic substances into lung tissue [31].

Assessment Methods for Oxidative Stress

Researchers can evaluate oxidative stress using various biochemical and molecular techniques:

• Direct ROS Detection: Fluorescent probes such as DCFH-DA and dihydroethidium can be used to detect and quantify intracellular ROS production using flow cytometry or fluorescence microscopy.
• Biomarkers of Oxidative Damage: Lipid peroxidation can be assessed by measuring malondialdehyde (MDA) or 4-hydroxynonenal (4-HNE) levels. Protein oxidation can be evaluated through protein carbonyl content assays, while DNA damage can be quantified via 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) measurement.
• Antioxidant Status Evaluation: The activity of antioxidant enzymes (SOD, catalase, GPx) and levels of non-enzymatic antioxidants (glutathione) can be measured using spectrophotometric or fluorometric assays.

The Researcher's Toolkit

This section provides essential resources and methodologies for investigating the molecular mechanisms of EDC action.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Assays for EDC Mechanism Research

Research Tool	Specific Examples	Application & Function
In Vitro Bioassays [28]	ER-CALUX, AR-CALUX, steroidogenesis assays	High-throughput screening for receptor binding/interference and hormone production disruption.
Cell Lines [28] [30]	MCF-7 (breast cancer), Ishikawa (endometrial), primary cultures	Model systems for studying receptor signaling, gene expression, and epigenetic changes in relevant tissues.
Molecular Docking Tools [32]	AutoDock Vina, SwissDock, Schrӧdinger Suite	In silico prediction of EDC binding affinity and interactions with hormone receptors (ER, AR, TR).
Epigenomic Analysis Kits [29]	Bisulfite Conversion Kits, ChIP-seq Kits, MeDIP Kits	Experimental workflows for mapping DNA methylation and histone modifications.
Oxidative Stress Assays [31]	DCFH-DA, Lipid Peroxidation (MDA) Assays, Antioxidant Activity Kits	Quantifying ROS production, lipid peroxidation, and cellular antioxidant capacity.

Experimental Protocol: Assessing EDC Effects on DNA Methylation

Objective: To evaluate changes in global and gene-specific DNA methylation in a uterine cell line following exposure to a suspect EDC.

Materials:

• Uterine cell line (e.g., Ishikawa cells)
• EDC of interest (e.g., BPA) and vehicle control
• DNA extraction kit
• Bisulfite conversion kit
• Reagents for quantitative PCR (qPCR) or next-generation sequencing

Methodology:

• Cell Culture and Exposure: Culture Ishikawa cells under standard conditions. At 70-80% confluence, expose experimental groups to a range of EDC concentrations (e.g., 1 nM - 10 µM) relevant to human exposure. Include a vehicle control (e.g., DMSO <0.1%).
• Duration: Expose cells for a duration sufficient to observe epigenetic effects (e.g., 48-96 hours). Consider including a recovery period to assess persistence of changes.
• DNA Extraction: Harvest cells and extract high-molecular-weight genomic DNA using a commercial kit. Quantify DNA concentration and purity.
• Bisulfite Conversion: Treat 500 ng of genomic DNA with sodium bisulfite using a commercial kit. This treatment deaminates unmethylated cytosine to uracil, while methylated cytosine remains unchanged.
• Analysis:
  • Global Methylation: Use an ELISA-based method or liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to quantify 5-methylcytosine levels in the genome.
  • Gene-Specific Methylation: Design PCR primers for bisulfite-converted DNA targeting CpG-rich regions in promoters of interest (e.g., HOXA10). Perform bisulfite sequencing (cloning and Sanger sequencing or pyrosequencing) or utilize a targeted NGS approach to analyze methylation status at single-base resolution.
• Data Analysis: Map sequencing reads to the reference genome and calculate the percentage of methylation at each CpG site. Compare methylation patterns between EDC-exposed and control groups using appropriate statistical tests (e.g., t-tests, ANOVA).

Interpretation: Hypermethylation in the promoter region of a tumor suppressor gene in exposed cells suggests a mechanism for increased disease risk. Correlate methylation findings with gene expression data (e.g., RNA-seq) from the same samples.

The molecular mechanisms of EDC action—receptor binding interference, epigenetic alterations, and oxidative stress—represent interconnected pathways that can disrupt endocrine function and contribute to adverse health outcomes. The complexity of these mechanisms is heightened by the non-monotonic dose responses and the critical importance of exposure timing, particularly during developmental windows [30]. Future research should prioritize the investigation of mixture effects, as humans are concurrently exposed to multiple EDCs from personal care and household products [27], and further develop strategies to reverse or mitigate EDC-induced epigenetic changes [29]. A comprehensive understanding of these molecular initiating events is fundamental for improving chemical risk assessment and developing targeted therapeutic interventions.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are exogenous substances that interfere with the normal function of the hormonal system, posing a significant threat to human health. The Endocrine Society defines EDCs as "an exogenous chemical, or mixture of chemicals, that can interfere with any aspect of hormone action" [33]. These chemicals are ubiquitously present in personal care products (PCPs) and household items, making them a pervasive environmental challenge. EDCs can mimic, block, or interfere with the body's hormones at extremely low doses, disrupting critical biological processes including development, reproduction, metabolism, and neurological function [2]. Research indicates that EDCs can alter the production, release, transport, metabolism, binding, action, or elimination of natural hormones, leading to widespread health consequences across the lifespan [34]. The purpose of this technical guide is to provide researchers and drug development professionals with a comprehensive overview of the mechanisms and health impacts of EDCs commonly found in PCPs and household products, with emphasis on reproductive, metabolic, neurodevelopmental, and oncological pathologies.

EDCs in Personal Care and Household Products: Exposure Pathways and Chemical Profiles

Human exposure to EDCs occurs primarily through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption from countless everyday products. Personal care products—including shampoos, cosmetics, lotions, and fragrances—represent a significant exposure source for many EDCs such as phthalates, parabens, and triclosan [1] [35]. Household products including plastics, food containers, cleaning agents, and textiles additionally contribute to exposure through bisphenols, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and flame retardants [2] [36]. The frequency of PCP utilization is highly variable and influenced by lifestyle and socioeconomic status, with individuals using at least two PCPs in a typical 24-hour period globally [1].

Phthalates, used as scent retainers and plasticizers, are found in hundreds of products including food packaging, cosmetics, fragrances, children's toys, and medical device tubing [2] [34]. Parabens (methyl-, ethyl-, propyl-, and butyl-paraben) are widely employed as preservatives in foods, drugs, and cosmetics [35]. Bisphenol A (BPA) and its analogues are used in polycarbonate plastics, epoxy resins, thermal receipts, and food can linings [1] [35]. PFAS, known as "forever chemicals," are used in stain/water resistant coatings, non-stick cookware, food container coatings, and fire-fighting foam [2] [34]. These EDCs display non-monotonic dose responses, where low exposures can produce stronger effects than higher doses, complicating traditional toxicological risk assessment [35].

Table 1: Common EDCs in Personal Care and Household Products: Sources and Exposure Pathways

EDC Class	Specific Chemicals	Product Applications	Primary Exposure Routes
Phthalates	DEHP, DEP, DnBP, DiBP, BBzP	Plastics, PCPs (fragrances, nail polish, hair spray), vinyl flooring, medical tubing	Ingestion, inhalation, dermal absorption [34]
Bisphenols	BPA, BPS, BPF	Food containers, plastic bottles, dental materials, thermal paper	Ingestion, dermal absorption [1] [35]
Parabens	Methyl-, Ethyl-, Propyl-, Butyl-paraben	Cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, food preservatives	Dermal absorption, ingestion [6] [35]
PFAS	PFOA, PFOS	Non-stick cookware, food packaging, stain-resistant fabrics, firefighting foam	Ingestion, inhalation [2] [34]
Antimicrobials	Triclosan	Soaps, toothpaste, cleaning products, kitchen utensils	Dermal absorption, ingestion [34]

Reproductive Disorders

EDCs interfere with reproductive health by disrupting the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis, impairing steroid hormone action, and altering developmental programming. The reproductive system is particularly vulnerable to environmental insults due to its dependence on precise hormonal signaling and energy expenditures closely tied to nutritional status [1].

Mechanisms of Action

Bisphenol A (BPA) acts as a xenoestrogen, binding to estrogen receptors (ERα and ERβ) and functioning as an agonist or antagonist of natural estrogen, thereby disrupting estrogen-signaling pathways [1]. Phthalates interfere with the feedback mechanisms of the HPG axis and exhibit both estrogenic and anti-estrogenic activities [1]. Parabens demonstrate estrogenic and anti-androgenic effects, potentially modulating estradiol concentrations and affecting fertility [35]. These disruptions are particularly detrimental during critical developmental windows such as fetal development, puberty, and reproductive maturation.

Key Research Findings

Epidemiological studies have associated BPA exposure with diminished ovarian reserve, reduced antral follicle count, polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), and implantation failure [1]. A case-control study in China demonstrated that BPA impacts ovarian follicles in PCOS women, reducing ovarian reserve [1]. UK studies identified statistically significant positive associations between androgens and BPA, with higher BPA levels in PCOS women compared to controls [1]. Phthalate exposure has been linked to endometriosis, early pubertal onset, and dysregulations of the HPG axis [1]. The synthetic estrogen diethylstilbestrol (DES) provides a historical precedent, with daughters of women who took DES during pregnancy developing rare vaginal cancers and numerous noncancerous reproductive tract changes [2] [37].

Diagram 1: EDC Mechanisms in Reproductive Disorders. EDCs disrupt reproductive function through multiple interconnected pathways including HPG axis disruption, steroid hormone interference, and developmental reprogramming.

Table 2: EDCs and Associated Reproductive Health Outcomes

EDC	Key Reproductive Effects	Evidence Level	Proposed Mechanisms
Bisphenol A (BPA)	Lower ovarian reserve, reduced antral follicle count, PCOS, implantation failure [1]	Human epidemiological studies, animal models	Estrogen receptor agonism/antagonism, alteration of steroidogenesis [1]
Phthalates	Endometriosis, early pubertal onset, HPG axis dysregulation [1]	Cohort studies, case-control studies	Interference with HPG feedback mechanisms, anti-androgenic activity [1]
Parabens	Infertility via modulation of estradiol concentrations [35]	In vitro studies, limited human studies	Estrogenic and anti-androgenic effects [35]
Diethylstilbestrol (DES)	Vaginal clear cell carcinoma, reproductive tract abnormalities, infertility [37]	Human cohort studies, historical evidence	Epigenetic reprogramming, estrogen receptor activation [37]

Experimental Approaches for Reproductive Toxicology

Urinary Biomarker Analysis: High-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) is employed to quantify urinary concentrations of BPA, phthalate metabolites (MEHP, MECPP, MEHHP, MEOHP), and paraben metabolites to assess internal exposure doses [6] [34]. Specific protocols involve solid-phase extraction, enzymatic deconjugation, and reverse-phase chromatography with detection in multiple reaction monitoring mode [6].

In Vitro Receptor Assays: Reporter gene assays in ER/AR-transfected cell lines measure the estrogenic/androgenic activity of EDCs. These assays typically involve co-transfection with hormone-responsive elements linked to luciferase, followed by exposure to EDCs and measurement of reporter activity [35].

Animal Models of Developmental Exposure: Critical period exposures during gestation or early postnatal life in rodent models assess long-term reproductive consequences. Endpoints include ovarian follicle counts, estrous cyclicity, mating success, and histological evaluation of reproductive tissues [1] [34].

Metabolic Diseases

EDCs contribute to metabolic disorders by disrupting multiple hormonal pathways that regulate energy homeostasis, adipogenesis, and glucose metabolism. These chemicals are implicated in the increasing global prevalence of obesity, type 2 diabetes, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and metabolic syndrome [36] [32].

Mechanisms of Action

EDCs disrupt metabolic homeostasis through multiple interconnected pathways. They activate peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ), a master regulator of adipogenesis, promoting lipid accumulation and adipocyte differentiation [33]. They interfere with pancreatic β-cell function, disrupting insulin secretion and glucose homeostasis [1]. Thyroid hormone disruption alters basal metabolic rate and thermogenesis [34]. Glucocorticoid signaling interference affects glucose metabolism and promotes hepatic steatosis [34]. These disruptions during critical developmental windows can program a "thrifty phenotype" that promotes efficient energy storage and rapid weight gain, increasing long-term disease risk [34].

Key Research Findings

Evidence from epidemiological studies indicates that EDC exposure is associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes, with BPA exposure linked to disruptions in insulin signaling and glucose tolerance [35]. PFAS exposure has been associated with diminished immune response to vaccines and altered metabolism, increasing diabetes risk [2]. Early-life exposure to PFAS is associated with excess adiposity and increased risk of overweight/obesity in children [34]. Arsenic exposure has been shown to disrupt metabolism, increasing the risk of diabetes and other metabolic disorders [2]. Network toxicology and molecular docking studies reveal that EDCs induce metabolic disorders by modulating cellular expression, influencing apoptosis and proliferation, and regulating signaling pathways interconnected among lipid metabolism disorders, atherosclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, hyperuricemia, and NAFLD [32].

Diagram 2: EDC Mechanisms in Metabolic Disorders. EDCs disrupt metabolic homeostasis through multiple pathways including altered adipogenesis, pancreatic dysfunction, thyroid disruption, and glucocorticoid signaling.

Table 3: EDCs and Associated Metabolic Health Outcomes

EDC	Key Metabolic Effects	Evidence Level	Proposed Mechanisms
Bisphenol A (BPA)	Type 2 diabetes, obesity, metabolic syndrome [35] [32]	Epidemiological studies, animal models	PPARγ activation, pancreatic β-cell dysfunction, insulin signaling disruption [1] [33]
PFAS	Obesity, diabetes, diminished immune response to vaccines [2] [34]	Cohort studies, cross-sectional studies	Thyroid hormone disruption, altered lipid metabolism [2]
Phthalates	Obesity, insulin resistance [34]	Cohort studies, animal models	PPAR activation, glucocorticoid receptor interference [34]
Arsenic	Diabetes, metabolic disorders [2]	Occupational studies, population studies	Mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, insulin signaling disruption [2]

Experimental Approaches for Metabolic Toxicology

Glucose and Insulin Tolerance Tests: In vivo assessment of glucose homeostasis in animal models following developmental or adult EDC exposure. Protocols involve fasting animals, administering glucose or insulin, and measuring blood glucose at regular intervals to assess metabolic function [34].

Adipocyte Differentiation Assays: In vitro models using 3T3-L1 preadipocytes or human mesenchymal stem cells to evaluate EDC effects on adipogenesis. Cells are exposed to EDCs during differentiation, with endpoints including lipid accumulation (Oil Red O staining), gene expression of adipogenic markers (PPARγ, C/EBPα, FABP4), and adipokine secretion [34].

Hepatic Steatosis Models: Primary hepatocytes or liver cell lines exposed to EDCs to assess lipid accumulation, gene expression related to lipid metabolism, and insulin signaling. In vivo models include histological examination of liver tissue and biochemical analysis of hepatic triglycerides [34] [32].

Neurodevelopmental Deficits

The developing nervous system exhibits particular vulnerability to EDCs, with exposure linked to cognitive deficits, neurodevelopmental disorders, and behavioral abnormalities. The brain's complexity and dependence on precisely timed hormonal signals for development make it highly susceptible to endocrine disruption [38] [33].

Mechanisms of Action

EDCs disrupt thyroid hormone signaling, which is critical for neuronal migration, synaptogenesis, and myelination during gestation and childhood [34]. They interfere with sex steroid hormones that organize neural circuits during critical developmental periods [33]. EDCs alter neurotransmitter systems, including dopamine, serotonin, and glutamate, which regulate behavior, cognition, and mood [38]. They induce oxidative stress and inflammatory responses in neural tissue, leading to neuronal damage and impaired connectivity [33]. These disruptions are particularly detrimental during sensitive windows of development including gestation, early childhood, and puberty, when the brain undergoes rapid organization and maturation [33].

Key Research Findings

Prenatal exposure to BPA and phthalates has been associated with adverse neurobehavioral outcomes including increased anxiety, depression, hyperactivity, and impaired social behavior [34]. Postnatal EDC exposure has been linked to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and other neurodevelopmental disorders [33]. PCB exposure is strongly associated with neurological disorders, including impaired neurodevelopment, lower IQ, and problems with attention, memory, and fine motor skills [38]. Children in Arctic communities with high levels of persistent pollutants show significant neurodevelopmental impairments [38]. Pesticide exposure has been associated with depressive behaviors and neurodegenerative disorders including Parkinson's disease, with links to ADHD and ASD [38]. A study of prenatal and childhood exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in a California migrant community associated a 10-fold increase in PBDE exposure with an average IQ reduction of five points, comparable to effects seen with lead and PCB exposure [38].

Table 4: EDCs and Associated Neurodevelopmental Outcomes

EDC	Key Neurodevelopmental Effects	Evidence Level	Proposed Mechanisms
Phthalates	ADHD, ASD, impaired social behavior, inattention, hyperactivity [34] [33]	Cohort studies, case-control studies	Dopamine system disruption, thyroid hormone interference, oxidative stress [34]
BPA	Anxiety, depression, hyperactivity, impaired memory and learning [34] [35]	Animal studies, epidemiological studies	Estrogen receptor signaling, glutamate receptor modulation, altered synapse formation [35]
PCBs	Reduced IQ, attention problems, memory deficits, fine motor impairment [38]	Cohort studies, cross-cultural studies	Thyroid hormone disruption, altered calcium signaling, oxidative stress [38]
PBDEs	IQ reduction, attention deficits, cognitive impairments [38]	Cohort studies, animal studies	Thyroid hormone disruption, altered synaptic plasticity [38]
Pesticides	ADHD, ASD, depressive behaviors, Parkinson's disease [38]	Occupational studies, population studies	Cholinergic system disruption, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction [38]

Experimental Approaches for Neurodevelopmental Toxicology

Behavioral Testing in Animal Models: Standardized behavioral test batteries in developmentally exposed rodents include open field test (activity/anxiety), elevated plus maze (anxiety), social interaction test (sociability), Morris water maze (learning/memory), and prepulse inhibition (sensorimotor gating) [34] [33].

Thyroid Hormone Function Assessment: Measurement of serum T3, T4, and TSH levels in exposed animals; analysis of thyroid hormone-responsive gene expression in brain tissue; and assessment of deiodinase enzyme activity to evaluate EDC effects on thyroid signaling [34].

Neurohistopathological Analysis: Quantitative morphometry of brain regions including hypothalamus, hippocampus, and cortex; assessment of neuronal density, synaptic markers, myelination, and glial activation in developmentally exposed animals [33].

Hormone-Sensitive Cancers

EDCs contribute to carcinogenesis by mimicking hormones, promoting proliferation, inhibiting apoptosis, and altering the tumor microenvironment. Hormone-sensitive tissues including breast, prostate, ovary, and endometrium are particularly vulnerable to EDC-induced carcinogenesis [37] [35].

Mechanisms of Action

EDCs act through genomic pathways by binding to nuclear hormone receptors (estrogen receptors, androgen receptors) and altering gene expression patterns to promote cell proliferation and survival [37]. They utilize non-genomic pathways through membrane receptors (GPER) to activate rapid signaling cascades including MAPK and PI3K/Akt pathways [35]. EDCs induce epigenetic modifications that reprogram gene expression, including DNA methylation changes and histone modifications that can be transmitted across generations [37]. They modulate the tumor microenvironment by influencing immune cell function, cytokine production, and angiogenesis to support tumor growth and metastasis [35]. The scaffold protein RACK1 has been identified as a molecular bridge between EDC exposure, immune activation, and cancer progression, representing a potential integrative mechanism [35].

Key Research Findings

Diethylstilbestrol (DES) exposure provides the clearest human evidence, with daughters of women who took DES during pregnancy developing rare vaginal and cervical cancers at significantly higher rates [37]. BPA exposure is associated with increased risk of breast and prostate cancers, with low-dose BPA shown to significantly increase ductal growth and mammary cancer risk in animal models [37]. Early-life exposure to DDT is associated with increased breast cancer risk later in life, particularly when exposure occurs in utero [37] [35]. EDC exposure can reprogram stem and progenitor cells, potentially transmitting a lifelong predisposition to diseases like prostate cancer [37]. EDCs may influence cancer development across generations, with transgenerational effects observed in animal studies [37].

Diagram 3: EDC Mechanisms in Hormone-Sensitive Cancers. EDCs promote carcinogenesis through genomic and non-genomic signaling, epigenetic modifications, and tumor microenvironment alterations.

Table 5: EDCs and Associated Cancer Outcomes

EDC	Key Cancer Effects	Evidence Level	Proposed Mechanisms
Diethylstilbestrol (DES)	Vaginal clear cell carcinoma, reproductive cancers [37]	Human cohort studies, historical evidence	Estrogen receptor activation, epigenetic reprogramming [37]
Bisphenol A (BPA)	Breast cancer, prostate cancer [37]	Animal models, epidemiological studies	ER activation, altered mammary gland development, stem cell reprogramming [37]
DDT/DDE	Breast cancer, prostate cancer [37] [35]	Cohort studies, case-control studies	ER activation, AR antagonism, immune suppression [35]
Phthalates	Breast cancer, testicular cancer [35]	In vitro studies, limited human studies	Altered steroidogenesis, PPAR activation, oxidative stress [35]

Experimental Approaches for Cancer Toxicology

Cell Proliferation and Transformation Assays: In vitro models assessing EDC effects on cell cycle progression (BrdU incorporation, flow cytometry), soft agar colony formation (anchorage-independent growth), and invasion through Matrigel-coated membranes to evaluate metastatic potential [35].

Mammary Gland Whole Mount Analysis: Examination of mammary gland architecture in developmentally exposed animals, with quantification of terminal end buds, branching complexity, and ductal elongation to assess susceptibility to carcinogenesis [37].

Xenograft Models: Human cancer cells implanted into immunocompromised mice with EDC exposure to evaluate effects on tumor growth, angiogenesis, and metastasis in vivo [35].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 6: Essential Research Reagents for EDC Investigation

Reagent/Category	Application	Key Function	Example Uses
HPLC-MS/MS Systems	Biomarker quantification	Precise measurement of EDCs and metabolites in biological samples	Urinary BPA, phthalate metabolites, parabens [6]
ER/AR Reporter Assays	Receptor activity screening	Detection of agonist/antagonist activity at hormone receptors	BPA estrogenicity, phthalate anti-androgenicity [35]
CYP450 Inhibition Assays	Metabolic disruption assessment	Evaluation of EDC effects on hormone metabolism	Paraben inhibition of metabolizing enzymes [35]
RNA-seq/Transcriptomics	Gene expression profiling	Comprehensive analysis of pathway alterations	Mechanistic studies in metabolic, neurotoxicology [32]
DNA Methylation Arrays	Epigenetic analysis	Detection of transgenerational programming	Developmental origins of health and disease [37]
3D Organoid Models	Tissue-specific toxicity	Human-relevant developmental models	Mammary gland, prostate, neural development [37]

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals in personal care and household products present a significant challenge to human health, with demonstrated effects on reproductive, metabolic, neurodevelopmental, and oncological outcomes. The evidence compiled in this review underscores the need for continued research into the mechanisms of EDC action, particularly during sensitive developmental windows. Future research directions should prioritize the assessment of real-world EDC mixtures, identification of susceptible populations, elucidation of transgenerational effects, and development of robust testing strategies to protect public health. For researchers and drug development professionals, understanding these pathways is essential for developing targeted interventions, designing safer chemicals, and informing evidence-based regulatory policies.

Analytical Techniques and Detection Methods for EDC Assessment

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are exogenous substances that interfere with the normal function of the endocrine system, leading to adverse health effects in intact organisms or their progeny [39]. These compounds can mimic natural hormones, antagonize their action, alter their synthesis and metabolism, or modify receptor expression [40]. EDCs of concern in personal care and household products include phthalates, parabens, UV filters (e.g., benzophenones), bisphenols (e.g., BPA), synthetic musks, and alkylphenols, which are intentionally added or originate from packaging materials [41]. The analysis of EDCs presents significant challenges due to their occurrence at trace-level concentrations (ng·L⁻¹ to μg·L⁻¹) in complex matrices, necessitating highly sensitive and selective analytical methods for reliable quantification [40].

The European Commission's Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 establishes limitations and maximum authorized concentrations for substances in cosmetics, driving the need for robust analytical methods to ensure consumer safety and comply with regulatory standards [41]. This technical guide details the application of LC-MS/MS and GC-MS platforms for sensitive EDC quantification, providing researchers with advanced methodologies for exposure assessment in personal care product research.

Chromatography-mass spectrometry hyphenated systems combine superior separation power with sensitive and selective detection, making them the cornerstone of modern EDC analysis [40]. The choice between liquid chromatography (LC) and gas chromatography (GC) coupling to mass spectrometry is primarily determined by the physicochemical properties of the target analytes.

Table 1: Comparison of LC-MS/MS and GC-MS Techniques for EDC Analysis

Feature	LC-MS/MS	GC-MS
Analyte Suitability	Non-volatile, thermally labile, polar compounds [42]	Volatile, semi-volatile, and thermally stable compounds [42]
Separation Mechanism	Liquid mobile phase, solid stationary phase [42]	Gas mobile phase, liquid stationary phase [42]
Mass Spectrometry Interface	Electrospray ionization (ESI), Atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) [43]	Electron impact (EI), Chemical ionization (CI) [44]
Key Applications	Pharmaceuticals, polar pesticides, hormones, UV filters [41] [43]	Fragrances (musks), PCBs, pesticides, phenolic compounds (after derivatization) [41] [45]
Sample Preparation	Often requires extensive cleanup (e.g., SPE); Direct injection possible for clean matrices [43]	Often requires derivatization for polar compounds to increase volatility and thermal stability [44]
Analysis Time	Generally longer run times	Faster analysis, especially with fast GC [45]

LC-MS/MS has become the dominant technique for EDC analysis due to its ability to handle polar and thermally labile compounds without derivatization, covering a wide range of relevant substance classes [40] [43]. In contrast, GC-MS remains the method of choice for volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, offering high chromatographic resolution and robust, reproducible electron impact ionization spectra [45].

Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)

Principles and Instrumentation

Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry separates compounds dissolved in a liquid mobile phase followed by detection using a tandem mass spectrometer. The technique is particularly suited for EDC analysis because it can handle a broad spectrum of polarities and molecular weights without requiring chemical derivatization. Advanced LC systems, such as Agilent's InfinityLab Pro iQ Series, are designed to support applications ranging from small molecule analysis to complex biomolecules [46]. For mass spectrometry, triple quadrupole (QqQ) mass analyzers operating in selected reaction monitoring (SRM) mode are most commonly employed for EDC quantification due to their excellent sensitivity, selectivity, and wide linear dynamic range [40]. The most intensive fragment ion transition is used for quantification, while a secondary transition provides confirmatory evidence [40].

Experimental Protocol: Multi-Residue Analysis in Water Matrices

This protocol is adapted from a study developing a multi-residue UHPLC-MS/MS method for 52 pharmaceutical and personal care product analytes in drinking water [43].

• Sample Preparation: Collect water samples in amber glass bottles. If immediate analysis is not possible, preserve samples at 4°C. Filter samples through a 0.2 μm porosity PTFE microfilter to remove particulate matter. For complex matrices, employ solid-phase extraction (SPE) using polymeric sorbents like Oasis HLB for concentration and cleanup. Add appropriate internal standards before analysis to correct for matrix effects and variability.
• Instrumental Analysis: Utilize an UHPLC system coupled to a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer. Employ a reversed-phase C18 column (e.g., 100 mm × 2.1 mm, 1.8 μm particle size) maintained at 40°C. The mobile phase consists of (A) water and (B) methanol, both with 0.1% formic acid. Apply a gradient elution: start at 5% B, increase to 95% B over 10 minutes, hold for 2 minutes, then re-equilibrate. Set the flow rate to 0.4 mL/min and injection volume to 10 μL.
• Mass Spectrometric Detection: Operate the mass spectrometer in positive and/or negative electrospray ionization mode with multiple reaction monitoring (MRM). Optimize source parameters (nebulizer gas, heater gas, drying gas, capillary voltage) for maximum sensitivity. For each analyte, select one precursor ion → product ion transition for quantification and a second for confirmation.
• Validation: Validate the method for selectivity, linearity, accuracy (recovery of 70-120%), precision (repeatability and reproducibility), and limits of detection and quantification.

Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Reagents and Materials for LC-MS/MS Analysis of EDCs

Item	Function/Description	Example from Literature
Solid-Phase Extraction Cartridges	Concentrates and purifies analytes from aqueous samples; reduces matrix effects.	Oasis HLB, Strata-X [43]
UHPLC Columns	Provides high-resolution separation of complex mixtures; sub-2μm particles enhance efficiency.	C18 reversed-phase column [43]
Mass Spectrometry Internal Standards	Corrects for variability in sample prep and instrument response; improves data accuracy.	Isotope-labeled analogs of target analytes [43]
Mobile Phase Additives	Modifies pH and improves ionization efficiency in the MS source.	Formic acid, Ammonium acetate [43]
Syringe Filters	Removes particulate matter from samples prior to injection; prevents system clogging.	PTFE, Nylon (0.2 μm) [43]

Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS)

Principles and Instrumentation

Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry separates volatile compounds in a gaseous mobile phase with detection by mass spectrometry. For EDCs, GC-MS is particularly suited for compounds such as synthetic musks, certain pesticides, polycyclic musks, and phenolic compounds (like bisphenol A and alkylphenols) after appropriate derivatization [41] [45]. The development of fast GC-MS methods has reduced analytical run times significantly, which is crucial for high-throughput laboratories [45]. Modern innovations, such as Agilent's compact 8850 GC system, are focusing on miniaturization and improved performance while reducing the instrument's physical footprint [46]. The mass spectrometer is typically operated in electron impact (EI) ionization mode, which provides reproducible mass spectra suitable for library matching, or in selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode to enhance sensitivity for trace-level quantification [44].

Experimental Protocol: Analysis of Phenolic EDCs in Water

This protocol is adapted from a method for determining BPA, 4-nonylphenol (4NP), estradiol (E2), and ethinylestradiol (EE2) in natural water using GC-MS [44].

• Sample Preparation: Collect water samples according to standardized protocols (e.g., US EPA Method 1698) in amber glass bottles. Filter samples through a 0.45 μm nylon filter. Acidification may be necessary to prevent biodegradation.
• Solid-Phase Extraction: Condition Chromabond C18 cartridges (500 mg/6 mL) sequentially with 6 mL of methanol/acetone (3:2), 6 mL of methanol, and 6 mL of reagent water. Do not let the sorbent dry. Pass 500 mL of sample through the cartridge at a flow rate of 6.0 mL/min. Dry the cartridge under vacuum for 15-20 minutes.
• Elution and Concentration: Elute the retained compounds with 10 mL of methanol/acetone (3:2) mixture. Concentrate the eluate to approximately 1 mL using a rotary evaporator. Then, completely remove the remaining solvent under a gentle stream of nitrogen gas.
• Derivatization: Reconstitute the dry extract in 50 μL of pyridine. Add 50 μL of N,O-bis(trimethylsilyl)trifluoroacetamide (BSTFA) + 1% TMCS. Heat the mixture at 60°C for 60 minutes in a water bath to form trimethylsilyl derivatives, which increase the volatility and thermal stability of the target phenolic EDCs.
• GC-MS Analysis: Inject 1 μL of the derivatized sample in splitless mode into a GC-MS system equipped with an HP-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm, 0.25 μm film thickness). Use helium as the carrier gas at a constant flow of 1 mL/min. The GC oven temperature program should be: 150°C held for 2 min, ramped to 250°C at 15°C/min, then ramped to 280°C at 5°C/min and held for 15 min. Set the MS ion source and quadrupole temperatures to 230°C and 150°C, respectively. Operate the MS in EI mode (70 eV) and SIM mode for optimal sensitivity.

Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for GC-MS Analysis of EDCs

Item	Function/Description	Example from Literature
Derivatization Reagents	Increases volatility and thermal stability of polar EDCs (e.g., phenols, acids) for GC analysis.	BSTFA + TMCS [44]
SPE Sorbents	Extracts and cleans up analytes from complex aqueous or solid matrices.	C18, Polymer-based [44]
GC Capillary Columns	Provides high-resolution separation of volatile compounds; the stationary phase dictates selectivity.	HP-5MS (5% Phenyl Polysiloxane) [44]
High-Purity Solvents	Used for extraction, elution, and preparation of standards; minimizes background contamination.	Acetone, Methanol, Pyridine [44]
Inert Carrier Gas	Mobile phase for GC; must be high purity to maintain column efficiency and detector performance.	Helium (99.998%) [44]

Analytical Performance and Applications

The described LC-MS/MS and GC-MS methods enable the sensitive detection and precise quantification of EDCs at the trace levels typically found in environmental and product matrices. Performance data from published studies demonstrate their applicability for monitoring EDCs in personal care product research.

Table 4: Representative Analytical Performance Data for EDC Determination

Analyte	Matrix	Technique	Limit of Detection	Recovery (%)	Reference
Bisphenol A (BPA)	Natural Water	GC-MS	24.7 - 37.0 ng/mL (IDL)	71.8 - 111.0	[44]
17α-Ethinylestradiol (EE2)	Natural Water	GC-MS	24.7 - 37.0 ng/mL (IDL)	71.8 - 111.0	[44]
Pharmaceuticals (52)	Drinking Water	LC-MS/MS (Direct Injection)	Not Specified	70 - 120 (for most)	[43]
Various EDCs	Cosmetics	LC-MS/MS or GC-MS	Low ng/mL to ng/g range	Varies by method	[41]

The selection of the appropriate analytical platform must be guided by the specific research question, the physicochemical properties of the target EDCs, the required sensitivity, and the available laboratory resources. The continuous innovation in both LC-MS/MS and GC-MS instrumentation promises even greater sensitivity, speed, and accessibility for EDC monitoring in the future [46].

The analysis of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) in personal care and household products represents a significant challenge for environmental and bioanalytical chemists. EDCs, which include compounds such as bisphenols, phthalates, parabens, and natural and synthetic hormones, can interfere with the endocrine system even at trace concentrations, potentially leading to adverse health effects including infertility, thyroid dysfunction, and increased disease susceptibility [47] [48]. Preparing samples from complex matrices for EDC analysis is a crucial step, often considered the bottleneck of analytical procedures. Traditional sample preparation techniques, such as liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) and conventional solid-phase extraction (SPE), are increasingly incompatible with modern analytical demands due to their consumption of large volumes of hazardous organic solvents, generation of significant waste, and requirement for lengthy, multi-step procedures [49] [50].

In response to these challenges, the principles of Green Analytical Chemistry (GAC) have catalyzed a paradigm shift toward more sustainable methodologies [49]. GAC aims to enhance operator safety, reduce energy consumption, and minimize or eliminate the use of hazardous chemicals [49] [51]. This evolution has fostered the development and adoption of microextraction techniques, which align with GAC by integrating miniaturization, simplification, and automation [49] [50]. These techniques are particularly strategic for EDC research, where they achieve high sensitivity and selectivity while drastically reducing solvent consumption, sample volume, and analysis time [52].

This technical guide provides an in-depth examination of three advanced green microextraction techniques—Solid-Phase Microextraction (SPME), Fabric Phase Sorbent Extraction (FPSE), and Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction (DLLME). Framed within EDC exposure assessment research, it details their fundamental principles, practical protocols, and applications for analyzing complex matrices, empowering researchers to implement these sustainable and efficient sample preparation strategies.

Fundamentals and Principles of Green Microextraction

Green microextraction techniques are defined by their miniaturized nature, which directly supports the goals of GAC. The overarching benefits of these approaches include a substantial reduction in organic solvent consumption, minimized sample volume requirements, decreased chemical waste generation, and the potential for automation, all while maintaining or even enhancing analytical performance [50] [52] [53].

The greenness of sample preparation methods can be systematically evaluated using metric tools such as the Analytical Greenness Sample Preparation (AGREEprep) tool [51]. This tool scores methods based on ten principles of green sample preparation, including the use of safer solvents, minimization of waste, and minimization of energy consumption [51]. Furthermore, for applications like therapeutic drug monitoring and EDC analysis, where analytical performance is paramount, the concept of White Analytical Chemistry (WAC) is gaining traction. WAC promotes a balance between the greenness of a method (G), its analytical performance (R - Red), and its economic and practical feasibility (B - Blue), aiming for a harmonious "white" outcome that does not compromise reliability for sustainability [51].

Table 1: Core Principles of Green Microextraction and Their Impact.

Principle	Description	Impact on Analytical Process
Miniaturization	Reduction of device size and sorbent/solvent volumes.	Drastically reduces organic solvent use and waste generation.
Simplification	Integration of extraction, clean-up, and preconcentration into a single step.	Reduces total analysis time and potential sources of error.
Automation	Use of automated systems for sample preparation.	Improves reproducibility and throughput; reduces operator exposure.
Solvent Reduction/Elimination	Use of solvent-free techniques or negligible solvent volumes.	Lowers environmental impact, cost, and toxicity hazards.

Technique 1: Solid-Phase Microextraction (SPME)

Core Principle and Workflow

Solid-Phase Microextraction (SPME) is a solvent-free equilibrium-based technique that revolutionized sample preparation upon its introduction in the 1990s [50] [53]. It integrates sampling, extraction, and concentration into a single step. The core principle involves the partitioning of analytes from the sample matrix (liquid or headspace) to a stationary phase coated on a fused-silica fiber or metal core [50] [53]. After extraction, the SPME device is transferred to an analytical instrument (typically a GC or HPLC injector), where thermal desorption or solvent elution releases the analytes for analysis [53].

Research Reagent Solutions

The selectivity and efficiency of SPME are predominantly determined by the chemical nature of the fiber coating.

Table 2: Key SPME Fiber Coatings and Their Applications in EDC Analysis.

Coating Type	Chemical Composition	Analytical Function	Suitability for EDCs
Conventional Blends	PDMS/DVB, CW/DVB, DVB/CAR/PDMS	Extracts a broad range of non-polar to semi-polar compounds.	Suitable for pesticides (e.g., atrazine), some phthalates [53] [48].
Molecularly Imprinted Polymers (MIPs)	Polymers synthesized with a template molecule (e.g., a specific hormone).	Provides high selectivity for the target analyte and structurally related compounds.	Ideal for specific steroids/hormones (e.g., estradiol, testosterone) [52] [53].
Carbon-Based Materials	Graphene, Graphene Oxide, Carbon Nanotubes	High surface area and strong adsorption capacity for diverse analytes.	Effective for a wide range of EDCs due to tunable functionalization [53].
Polymeric Ionic Liquids (PILs)	Polymeric analogs of ionic liquids.	Enhanced thermal and chemical stability; tunable selectivity.	Useful for polar EDCs and metabolites; good for GC-MS due to thermal stability [53].

Experimental Protocol: Mini-SPME for EDCs in Water

The following protocol, adapted from a study determining EDCs in drinking water, demonstrates a miniaturized, green SPME approach [48].

1. Sample Preparation:

• Pipette 1 mL of the water sample into a 2 mL glass vial.
• For calibration, spike the sample with appropriate EDC standards (e.g., atrazine, diethylstilbestrol, estradiol, estrone). The studied linear range is typically 10.0–1000 μg L⁻¹ [48].

2. SPME Extraction:

• Use a commercially available SPME fiber assembly or a mini-SPME device.
• Condition the fiber according to the manufacturer's instructions.
• Inject the fiber through the vial septum and expose it to the sample headspace (HS-SPME) or immerse it directly (DI-SPME) under continuous agitation.
• Optimal Parameters: Incubate at 80°C for 20 min (pre-incubation), then extract for 60 min [48].

3. Desorption and Analysis:

• Retract the fiber and immediately introduce it into the GC injection port for thermal desorption.
• Desorption Conditions: 270°C for 20 minutes in splitless mode [48].
• Analyze the desorbed analytes via GC-MS using a DB-35MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm) with a temperature program from 80°C to 300°C [48].

4. Method Performance:

• This method reported limits of detection (LOD) between 0.020 and 0.087 μg L⁻¹ and correlation coefficients (r²) of 0.96–0.99 for the target EDCs, demonstrating high sensitivity and linearity without using organic solvents for extraction [48].

Figure 1: SPME Workflow for EDC Analysis. The process integrates sampling, extraction, and concentration into a single, solvent-free step.

Technique 2: Fabric Phase Sorbent Extraction (FPSE)

Core Principle and Workflow

Fabric Phase Sorbent Extraction (FPSE), introduced in 2014, is an advanced microextraction technique that combines the flexibility of a fabric substrate with the high extraction efficiency of sol-gel derived sorbent coatings [50]. A natural or synthetic fabric (e.g., cellulose or polyester) serves as a support for a chemically bonded, porous organic-inorganic hybrid sorbent coating. This configuration creates a high-surface-area, extraction medium that allows for direct immersion into sample matrices—including complex, viscous, or solid-loaded samples—with minimal pre-treatment [50]. The strong covalent bonding between the fabric and the sorbent grants the FPSE medium high chemical and mechanical stability.

Research Reagent Solutions

The versatility of FPSE stems from the customizable nature of its components.

Table 3: Essential Components for FPSE Method Development.

Component	Options and Functions	Role in FPSE
Fabric Substrate	Cellulose, polyester, fiberglass.	Provides a flexible, permeable, and robust support for the sorbent.
Sorbent Coating	Sol-gel PDMS, sol-gel PEG, sol-gel poly(tetrahydrofuran).	Determines selectivity; can be tailored for polar, non-polar, or mixed-mode extraction.
Elution Solvent	Small volumes (e.g., 1-2 mL) of acetonitrile, methanol, or their buffered solutions.	Desorbs the captured analytes from the FPSE medium for instrumental analysis.

Experimental Protocol

The FPSE procedure is straightforward and highly efficient for batch processing.

1. FPSE Medium Preparation:

• The FPSE medium is typically prepared in-house via sol-gel coating or obtained from commercial suppliers. The medium is conditioned with a suitable solvent (e.g., methanol) and rinsed with water before its first use [50].

2. Extraction:

• Cut a small piece (e.g., 2 cm²) of the FPSE medium.
• Directly immerse the FPSE piece into the sample solution (e.g., 10 mL of urine, plasma, or a cosmetic product extract).
• Stir the solution for a predetermined time (e.g., 30-60 min) to facilitate the partitioning of EDCs from the sample to the sorbent coating.

3. Washing and Elution:

• Remove the FPSE medium from the sample and briefly rinse with a small volume of ultrapure water to remove loosely bound matrix interferences.
• Transfer the FPSE medium to a clean vial for analyte elution (back-extraction).
• Add a small volume (e.g., 1.0 mL) of a suitable organic solvent (e.g., acetonitrile) and stir or sonicate for 5-10 minutes to desorb the analytes.

4. Analysis:

• The eluent is then directly injected into an LC-MS/MS or GC-MS system for the separation and quantification of the target EDCs. The minimal solvent consumption and high clean-up efficiency make FPSE exceptionally green.

Technique 3: Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction (DLLME)

Core Principle and Workflow

Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction (DLLME) is a solvent-based microextraction technique renowned for its simplicity, speed, and high enrichment factor [50] [52]. In classical DLLME, a mixture of an extraction solvent (a water-immiscible organic solvent) and a disperser solvent (a water-miscible solvent) is rapidly injected into an aqueous sample. This results in the formation of a cloudy solution, comprising fine droplets of the extraction solvent dispersed throughout the aqueous phase. This vast surface area between the two phases enables the rapid transfer of analytes from the sample to the extraction solvent. After centrifugation, the dispersed droplets coalesce at the bottom of the tube, and a small volume of the sedimented phase containing the preconcentrated analytes is collected for analysis [52].

Research Reagent Solutions

The move towards greener DLLME has been fueled by the adoption of innovative, low-toxicity solvents.

Table 4: Solvent Systems for Modern, Greener DLLME.

Solvent Type	Examples	Function and Green Attributes
Low-Density Organic Solvents	Chloroform, carbon tetrachloride (traditional).	High extraction efficiency for non-polar EDCs, but higher toxicity.
Deep Eutectic Solvents (DES)/Natural DES (NADES)	Mixtures of, e.g., choline chloride with urea or fatty acids.	Biodegradable, low-toxicity, tunable solvents; considered green alternatives [52].
Supramolecular Solvents (SUPRAS)	Vesicles of decanoic acid or reverse micelles.	Self-assembled structures with multiple binding sites; excellent for diverse EDCs [52].

Experimental Protocol: DES-Based DLLME for Hormones

This protocol exemplifies a green DLLME approach using Deep Eutectic Solvents for the extraction of steroid hormones from biological fluids [52].

1. Preparation of DES:

• Synthesize a DES by heating and stirring a mixture of a hydrogen bond donor (e.g., decanoic acid) and a hydrogen bond acceptor (e.g., tetrabutylammonium bromide) at a specific molar ratio (e.g., 1:2) until a homogeneous liquid forms [52].

2. Extraction Procedure:

• Place 5 mL of a centrifuged urine or plasma sample into a conical-bottom glass tube.
• Rapidly inject a mixture containing a few tens of microliters of the DES (as the extraction solvent) and a larger volume of a disperser solvent (e.g., methanol or acetone, ~1 mL) into the sample using a syringe.
• Vortex the mixture vigorously for a short period (e.g., 30 seconds) to form the cloudy suspension.

3. Phase Separation:

• Centrifuge the tube at 5000 rpm for 5 minutes to separate the phases.
• The DES, often having a density different from water, will form a separate layer. Due to the low volume used, it may form a sedimented phase or a floating droplet.

4. Collection and Analysis:

• Carefully collect the DES phase using a micro-syringe.
• Dilute the extract with a compatible solvent if needed and inject it into an HPLC or GC-MS system for analysis. The method provides high enrichment factors and low LODs due to the high preconcentration achieved.

Figure 2: DLLME Procedure. The method relies on creating a fine dispersion of extraction solvent for rapid and efficient analyte enrichment.

The selection of an appropriate microextraction technique is critical for the success of an EDC study. Each method offers distinct advantages.

Table 5: Comparative Overview of SPME, FPSE, and DLLME for EDC Determination.

Feature	Solid-Phase Microextraction (SPME)	Fabric Phase Sorbent Extraction (FPSE)	Dispersive Liquid-Liquid Microextraction (DLLME)
Principle	Sorption onto a coated fiber	Sorption onto a coated fabric	Partitioning into a dispersed solvent
Solvent Use	Solventless (for thermal desorption)	Low volumes (for back-extraction)	Very low volumes (μL range)
Sample Volume	Low (1-2 mL for mini-SPME) [48]	Medium (5-20 mL)	Low (1-10 mL)
Extraction Time	Medium to Long (min-hours, equilibrium)	Medium (30-90 min)	Very Fast (minutes)
Main Advantage	Solvent-free; direct coupling to GC/LC; automation	High stability; handles complex/punishing matrices	Very high enrichment factors; rapid and simple
Main Drawback	Fiber cost and fragility; possible carryover	Longer extraction time than DLLME	Often requires a dispersive solvent
Ideal for EDCs	Volatile/semi-volatile EDCs (e.g., pesticides, phenols) [48]	Complex matrices (e.g., cosmetics, sludge, biological fluids) [50]	Trace analysis of hormones in water and urine [52]

The transition to green sample preparation is not merely an ethical choice but a practical necessity for modern, high-throughput, and responsible laboratories researching Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals. SPME, FPSE, and DLLME represent powerful, mature, and continually evolving microextraction strategies that align perfectly with the principles of Green and White Analytical Chemistry. By minimizing environmental impact while maximizing analytical performance—including sensitivity, selectivity, and throughput—these techniques provide robust and reliable tools for accurately assessing EDC exposure from personal care and household products. The ongoing development of novel sorbents and green solvents promises to further enhance their capabilities, solidifying their role as cornerstone methodologies in environmental and bioanalytical chemistry.

The analysis of complex cosmetic and personal care product (PCP) formulations represents a significant analytical challenge due to the diverse physicochemical properties of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) they contain. EDCs are exogenous substances that interfere with the hormonal system, potentially leading to adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in humans [54]. Cosmetic and PCP matrices are particularly complex as they contain EDCs with varying polarities, from hydrophilic compounds like certain preservatives to highly hydrophobic substances such as UV filters and fragrances [41]. This complexity necessitates sophisticated separation strategies to address the full spectrum of EDCs, which is essential for accurate exposure assessment in the context of a broader thesis on EDC exposure from personal care and household products.

The analytical challenge is compounded by the fact that EDCs are present in cosmetic products both as intentionally added ingredients and as non-intended additives resulting from manufacturing processes or migration from packaging materials [41]. Furthermore, the widespread use of multiple PCPs by consumers leads to aggregate exposure, increasing the potential health risks [1]. Regulatory frameworks such as the European Commission's Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 establish limitations and requirements for substances in cosmetics, creating an urgent need for robust analytical methods to ensure compliance and consumer safety [41].

Analytical Challenges in Cosmetic Matrices

Complexity of Formulations and EDC Diversity

Cosmetic and personal care products constitute highly complex matrices containing numerous ingredients with diverse chemical properties and functionalities. These formulations typically include bases, preservatives, fragrances, colorants, and specialty additives such as UV filters, creating a challenging environment for analytical separation [41]. The primary challenge lies in the simultaneous extraction and separation of EDCs with vastly different polarities, from hydrophilic compounds like glycols and certain preservatives to hydrophobic substances including synthetic musks, phthalates, and UV filters.

The presence of high concentrations of surfactants, emulsifiers, and thickeners further complicates analysis by interfering with extraction efficiency and chromatographic separation. These matrix components can cause emulsion formation during extraction, reduce analyte recovery, and contaminate instrumentation [41]. Additionally, EDCs in cosmetics exist at trace concentrations (ng/g to μg/g) amidst high background interference, demanding highly sensitive and selective analytical methods [55].

Regulatory Considerations and Analytical Quality

Regulatory frameworks impose specific requirements for analytical methods used in cosmetic quality control. According to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, the sampling and analysis of cosmetic products "shall be performed in a reliable and reproducible manner" [41]. This necessitates method validation with attention to parameters including accuracy, precision, specificity, limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantification (LOQ), linearity, and robustness.

The European Commission has established specific methods for certain EDCs in cosmetics; for parabens, thin-layer chromatography for identification and HPLC-UV for confirmation are proposed, though these involve lengthy sample pretreatment procedures [41]. This highlights the need for improved analytical approaches that balance efficiency with regulatory compliance.

Table 1: Major Classes of EDCs in Cosmetic and Personal Care Products

EDC Category	Representative Compounds	Function in Formulations	Polarity Characteristics
Preservatives	Parabens (methyl-, ethyl-, propyl-), Triclosan	Antimicrobial protection	Hydrophilic to moderate hydrophobicity
UV Filters	Benzophenones, Octocrylene, Homosalate, Avobenzone	UV radiation protection	Hydrophobic
Fragrances	Synthetic musks, Phthalates	Scent enhancement	Highly hydrophobic
Antimicrobials	Triclocarban	Antibacterial function	Moderate hydrophobicity
Plasticizers	Bisphenol A, Phthalates	Flexibility, film formation	Hydrophobic
Surfactants	Alkylphenols	Cleaning, foaming	Amphiphilic

Separation Techniques for Hydrophilic Compounds

Hydrophilic Interaction Liquid Chromatography (HILIC)

Hydrophilic Interaction Liquid Chromatography (HILIC) has emerged as a powerful technique for separating polar compounds that demonstrate poor retention in reversed-phase liquid chromatography (RP-LC). HILIC employs polar stationary phases with mobile phases containing a high percentage of organic solvent (typically acetonitrile >60%) with a small percentage of aqueous solvent or buffer [56] [57]. The retention mechanism involves liquid-liquid partitioning of analytes between the organic-rich mobile phase and a water-rich layer adsorbed on the polar stationary phase, with additional contributions from hydrogen bonding, electrostatic interactions, and van der Waals forces [57].

The technique offers several advantages for polar EDC analysis, including enhanced retention of hydrophilic compounds, low backpressure due to the low viscosity of organic-rich mobile phases, compatibility with MS detection, and direct injection of organic solvent extracts without reconstitution [57]. HILIC is particularly valuable for analyzing polar EDCs such as certain preservatives and their metabolites that would elute near the void volume in RP-LC.

HILIC Stationary Phases and Method Development

Various stationary phases are available for HILIC separations, each with distinct selectivity characteristics. These include bare silica, amino, amide, diol, and zwitterionic phases [56]. Bare silica columns exhibit retention primarily through hydrogen bonding and ion-exchange interactions with silanol groups, while zwitterionic sulfoalkylbetaine phases (e.g., ZIC-HILIC) contain both strongly acidic sulfonic acid groups and strongly basic quaternary ammonium groups that create a stable water-rich layer [56].

Method development in HILIC requires careful optimization of several parameters. The organic solvent content significantly impacts retention, with higher organic percentages increasing retention for polar compounds. Buffer type and concentration control electrostatic interactions and peak shape, while pH influences the ionization state of both analytes and stationary phase functional groups [56] [57]. Successful HILIC implementation also requires attention to sample solvent composition, as high aqueous content can cause peak distortion, and adequate column re-equilibration between runs [57].

Table 2: HILIC Stationary Phases for Polar EDC Analysis

Stationary Phase Type	Retention Mechanisms	Advantages	Limitations
Bare Silica	Hydrogen bonding, ion-exchange	Wide applicability, robust	Peak tailing for basic compounds
Amino	Hydrogen bonding, weak anion-exchange	Good for carbohydrates	Reactivity with carbonyl compounds
Amide	Hydrogen bonding, dipole-dipole	Stable, reproducible	Limited pH stability
Diol	Hydrogen bonding	Mild interactions	Moderate retention
Zwitterionic	Strong hydrogen bonding, electrostatic	Balanced hydrophilic interactions	Complex retention mechanism

Separation Techniques for Hydrophobic Compounds

Reversed-Phase Liquid Chromatography (RP-LC)

Reversed-phase liquid chromatography (RP-LC) remains the most widely used technique for separating hydrophobic EDCs in cosmetic products. RP-LC employs non-polar stationary phases (typically C8 or C18) with polar mobile phases (water-methanol or water-acetonitrile mixtures). Separation is achieved based on the hydrophobic partitioning of analytes between the mobile phase and the stationary phase [41].

For more challenging separations of EDCs with similar properties, ultra-high performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) utilizing columns packed with sub-2-micron particles provides enhanced resolution, sensitivity, and faster analysis times compared to conventional HPLC [40]. The combination of RP-LC with mass spectrometric detection, particularly tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS), offers the selectivity and sensitivity required for trace-level determination of hydrophobic EDCs in complex cosmetic matrices [41].

Ion-Pairing Chromatography

Ion-pairing chromatography (IPC) extends the applicability of RP-LC to ionic or ionizable EDCs that would otherwise show poor retention. This technique involves adding ion-pairing reagents (such as alkyl sulfonates for bases or tetraalkylammonium salts for acids) to the mobile phase, which form neutral ion pairs with charged analytes, thereby increasing their retention on reversed-phase columns [58].

While IPC improves retention for ionic EDCs, it presents drawbacks including potential contamination of MS instrumentation, long equilibration times, and ion suppression effects. For these reasons, HILIC is often preferred over IPC for polar ionic compounds when MS detection is employed [58].

Comprehensive Analytical Workflows

Sample Preparation Techniques

Effective sample preparation is crucial for accurate EDC determination in cosmetic matrices. Sample pretreatment typically involves three basic stages: pretreatment, extraction of compounds of interest, and clean-up before chromatographic analysis [41]. The selection of appropriate sample preparation techniques depends on the physicochemical properties of target EDCs and the cosmetic matrix composition.

Solid-phase extraction (SPE) is widely employed for EDC extraction from cosmetic products, offering advantages including high enrichment factors, effective clean-up, and compatibility with various analyte polarities through selection of appropriate sorbents [41] [55]. Other techniques include liquid-liquid extraction (LLE), dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME), QuEChERS (Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged, and Safe), matrix solid-phase dispersion (MSPD), and dispersive micro-solid phase extraction (D-μ-SPE) [41] [55].

For complex cosmetic matrices, sequential or tandem extraction approaches may be necessary to comprehensively cover the wide polarity range of EDCs. This typically involves initial extraction of hydrophobic compounds followed by separate extraction of hydrophilic analytes, or simultaneous extraction using solvents of intermediate polarity with additional clean-up steps.

Analysis Workflow for EDCs in Cosmetics

Chromatographic Separation Optimization

Comprehensive analysis of EDCs in cosmetics requires orthogonal separation approaches to address the wide polarity range of target compounds. A typical strategy employs RP-LC for medium to hydrophobic EDCs (log P > 0) and HILIC for hydrophilic compounds (log P < 0) [41] [56]. For full spectral analysis, two-dimensional liquid chromatography (2D-LC) combining these orthogonal separation mechanisms can provide enhanced peak capacity and resolution.

Method optimization should consider both chromatographic parameters and detection requirements. For RP-LC, gradient elution with increasing organic content provides effective separation of EDCs with varying hydrophobicities. In HILIC, gradients starting with high organic content (≥80% acetonitrile) and increasing aqueous content elute polar compounds in order of increasing hydrophilicity [56] [57]. Mobile phase additives must be selected for compatibility with MS detection, with volatile buffers such as ammonium formate or ammonium acetate preferred over non-volatile salts.

Detection and Identification Strategies

Mass Spectrometric Detection

Mass spectrometry has become the detection technique of choice for EDC analysis in cosmetics due to its high sensitivity, selectivity, and capability for compound identification. Triple quadrupole (QqQ) mass spectrometers operating in selected reaction monitoring (SRM) or multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode provide excellent sensitivity and selectivity for targeted quantification of known EDCs [41] [40].

High-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) using time-of-flight (TOF) or quadrupole-time-of-flight (Q-TOF) instruments enables accurate mass measurement for untargeted screening and identification of unknown EDCs or transformation products [40]. Hybrid approaches combining targeted quantification with retrospective analysis of full-scan HRMS data offer comprehensive characterization of EDCs in cosmetic products.

Ionization techniques commonly employed include electrospray ionization (ESI) for polar to moderately non-polar compounds and atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) for less polar EDCs. The high organic solvent content used in HILIC makes it particularly compatible with ESI-MS, often enhancing sensitivity compared to RP-LC methods [58] [56].

Analytical Performance Parameters

Robust method validation is essential for reliable EDC determination in cosmetics. Key validation parameters include linearity, sensitivity (LOD and LOQ), accuracy, precision, and matrix effects [41] [55]. For regulatory compliance, methods should demonstrate LOQs below the maximum allowable concentrations specified in legislation such as Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009.

Matrix effects pose a significant challenge in cosmetic analysis due to the complex composition of these products. Evaluation of matrix effects through post-extraction spike experiments and implementation of effective compensation strategies (e.g., stable isotope-labeled internal standards, matrix-matched calibration) are necessary for accurate quantification [55].

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for EDC Analysis

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function in Analysis
HILIC Columns	ZIC-HILIC, TSKgel Amide-80, XBridge BEH Amide	Separation of polar EDCs
RP-LC Columns	C18, C8, Phenyl	Separation of hydrophobic EDCs
SPE Sorbents	LiChrolut EN, C18, Mixed-mode	Extraction and clean-up
Ion-Pair Reagents	Alkyl sulfonates, Tetraalkylammonium salts	Retention of ionic EDCs in RP-LC
Derivatization Agents	BSTFA, TMCS	Volatilization for GC analysis
MS Additives	Ammonium formate, Ammonium acetate	Mobile phase modifiers

EDC Signaling Pathways and Health Implications

Understanding the endocrine-disrupting mechanisms of cosmetic chemicals provides context for the importance of analytical methods. EDCs in cosmetics can interfere with multiple hormonal pathways, primarily acting through nuclear hormone receptors including estrogen receptors (ER), androgen receptors (AR), thyroid receptors (TR), and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPAR) [1] [54].

The hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis is a key target for many EDCs found in cosmetics. Chemicals such as phthalates, parabens, and UV filters can disrupt this axis at multiple levels by interfering with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) secretion from the hypothalamus, luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) release from the pituitary, or steroid hormone production in the gonads [54]. These disruptions can lead to reproductive disorders including infertility, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and endometriosis.

EDC Mechanisms and Health Effects

The analysis of complex cosmetic formulations containing both hydrophilic and hydrophobic EDCs presents significant analytical challenges that require sophisticated separation strategies. Successful comprehensive analysis necessitates orthogonal approaches combining RP-LC for hydrophobic compounds and HILIC for hydrophilic analytes, coupled with advanced mass spectrometric detection. Continued method development focusing on improved selectivity, sensitivity, and throughput will enhance our understanding of EDC exposure from personal care products and support regulatory decisions aimed at protecting human health. The integration of advanced sampling techniques, multidimensional separations, and high-resolution mass spectrometry represents the future direction for comprehensive characterization of EDCs in complex cosmetic matrices.

Biomonitoring, the direct measurement of environmental chemicals or their metabolites in human tissues and fluids, serves as a critical tool for assessing individual and population exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). In the specific context of personal care and household products research, biomonitoring provides definitive evidence of human exposure to complex chemical mixtures from these sources, linking product use to internal body burdens [1] [27]. EDCs are exogenous substances that interfere with hormone action and are linked to adverse health outcomes including reproductive impairments, metabolic disorders, and neurodevelopmental effects [59] [60]. The ubiquitous presence of EDCs in consumer products—from fragrances in cleaning supplies to preservatives in cosmetics—makes accurate exposure assessment fundamental to understanding their health impacts [27] [61].

This technical guide details state-of-the-art methodologies for quantifying EDCs and their metabolites in biological matrices, providing researchers with the experimental protocols and analytical frameworks necessary for rigorous exposure science. The focus on personal care and household products is particularly relevant given that these are significant exposure sources for many EDCs, including phthalates, parabens, bisphenols, and other compounds with endocrine-disrupting properties [1] [61].

Analytical Methodologies for EDC Quantification

Core Instrumentation and Techniques

The analysis of EDCs in biological matrices requires highly sensitive and selective instrumentation due to the trace-level concentrations (typically ng/mL or lower) and complex nature of the samples [40]. Liquid or gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (LC-MS or GC-MS) represents the gold standard for EDC biomonitoring, providing the necessary sensitivity, specificity, and multi-analyte capability.

High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) effectively separates analytes from complex biological matrices prior to detection. Recent advances include the use of columns packed with sub-2-micron particles for ultra-high pressure performance, which shortens analytical run times without compromising resolution [40].

Mass Spectrometry (MS) detection provides structural identification and quantification. While single quadrupole systems can be used, triple quadrupole (QqQ) mass spectrometers operated in selected reaction monitoring (SRM) mode offer superior selectivity and sensitivity for trace analysis by monitoring specific precursor-product ion transitions [40]. More advanced technologies like quadrupole-time-of-flight (Q-TOF) mass spectrometry provide accurate mass measurements of product ions, enabling structural elucidation of unknown compounds and identification of target analytes with greater certainty [40].

Sample Preparation Considerations

Biological samples (e.g., urine, serum, plasma) require extensive extraction and clean-up to remove interfering compounds and concentrate analytes. Common techniques include:

• Solid-phase extraction (SPE): Provides selective extraction and concentration of target analytes from liquid samples.
• Liquid-liquid extraction (LLE): Separates analytes based on differential solubility in immiscible solvents.
• Protein precipitation: Particularly relevant for serum and plasma samples to remove interfering proteins.

The choice of sample preparation technique depends on the specific matrix, target analytes, and required sensitivity [40].

Quantitative Data on EDC Body Burdens

Recent biomonitoring studies demonstrate widespread exposure to multiple classes of EDCs across diverse populations. The following tables summarize key findings from contemporary research.

Table 1: Biomonitoring of EDCs in Human Serum from Central India (n=173) [62]

Target Analyte	Mean Concentration (ng/mL)	Detection Frequency	Matrix
Diethyl phthalate (DEP)	13.74 ± 6.2	Not specified	Human serum
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)	13.69 ± 99.82	Not specified	Human serum
Bisphenol A (BPA)	Not specified	Not specified	Human serum

Table 2: Urinary Biomarkers of EDC Exposure in Chinese School Children (n=410) [63]

EDC Class	Number of Chemicals	Detection Frequency >50%	Key Exposure Predictors
Pesticides	5	31 chemicals	Dietary sources
Phenols	4	across all samples	Filtered water consumption (reduced BPA)
Parabens	5		Meat, vegetables
Chlorophenols	5		Dairy products
Toxic elements	14		Cereals, aquatic products

Table 3: EDCs in Personal Care Products and Associated Biomarkers [1] [61]

EDC Class	Common PCP Sources	Primary Biomarker Matrix	Key Health Concerns
Phthalates	Fragrances, nail polishes, hair sprays	Urine, serum	Reproductive abnormalities, endocrine disruption [62]
Parabens	Preservatives in cosmetics, lotions	Urine	Estrogenic activity, breast cancer risk
Bisphenol A (BPA)	Dental sealants, plastic containers	Urine, serum	Lower ovarian reserve, implantation failure [1]
Siloxanes	Shampoos, shower gels	Not specified	Endocrine disruption

Experimental Protocols for EDC Biomonitoring

Protocol: Analysis of Phthalates and BPA in Human Serum

Based on a recent study investigating EDCs in Central India, the following protocol details the methodology for serum analysis [62]:

Sample Collection and Storage:

• Collect blood samples using venipuncture in appropriate collection tubes.
• Allow blood to clot at room temperature for 30 minutes.
• Centrifuge at 2000-3000 × g for 10-15 minutes to separate serum.
• Aliquot serum into cryovials and store at -80°C until analysis.

Sample Preparation and Extraction:

• Thaw frozen serum samples at room temperature.
• Add internal standards (deuterated analogs of target analytes) to account for matrix effects and recovery variations.
• Perform protein precipitation using cold acetonitrile or methanol.
• Extract target analytes using solid-phase extraction (SPE) with C18 or mixed-mode sorbents.
• Evaporate extracts to dryness under a gentle nitrogen stream.
• Reconstitute in appropriate solvent (e.g., methanol or mobile phase initial conditions) for instrumental analysis.

Instrumental Analysis:

• Analytical Technique: Gas Chromatography coupled with Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS)
• GC Conditions: Use a capillary column (e.g., DB-5MS, 30m × 0.25mm × 0.25μm). Employ a temperature program: initial temperature 60°C (hold 1 min), ramp to 300°C at 15°C/min, final hold for 5 min.
• MS Conditions: Use electron impact (EI) ionization at 70 eV. Operate in selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode for optimal sensitivity. For confirmation, monitor at least two characteristic ions per analyte.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control:

• Include procedural blanks to monitor contamination.
• Use matrix-matched calibration standards for quantification.
• Analyze quality control samples (pooled human serum spiked with known analyte concentrations) with each batch of samples.
• Monitor instrument performance using continuing calibration verification standards.

Protocol: Urinary Biomarker Analysis for EDC Mixtures

For assessing cumulative exposure to EDC mixtures from personal care and household products, urinary biomonitoring provides a non-invasive approach [63]:

Sample Collection:

• Collect first-morning void urine samples to measure peak concentrations.
• Aliquot and freeze at -20°C or lower until analysis.

Sample Preparation:

• Thaw urine samples and vortex thoroughly.
• Add internal standards and enzymatic deconjugation solution (β-glucuronidase/sulfatase) to hydrolyze conjugated metabolites.
• Incubate at 37°C for several hours or overnight.
• Dilute with buffer or directly inject for LC-MS/MS analysis (dilute-and-shoot approach), or extract using SPE for improved sensitivity.

Instrumental Analysis:

• Analytical Technique: Liquid Chromatography coupled with tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)
• LC Conditions: Use a reversed-phase column (e.g., C18, 100 × 2.1 mm, 1.7-1.8 μm). Mobile phase typically consists of water and methanol or acetonitrile, both with modifiers such as ammonium acetate or formic acid.
• MS Conditions: Use electrospray ionization (ESI) in negative or positive mode depending on the analytes. Operate in multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode, monitoring at least two transitions per analyte for confident identification and quantification.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Materials and Reagents for EDC Biomonitoring

Item	Function/Application	Specific Examples
Triple Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer (QqQ)	High-sensitivity quantification of target EDCs in complex matrices [40]	GC-MS/MS or LC-MS/MS systems operated in SRM/MRM mode
Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE) Cartridges	Extraction and clean-up of EDCs from biological matrices [40]	C18, mixed-mode (reversed-phase/ion exchange), polymer-based sorbents
Deuterated Internal Standards	Correction for matrix effects and analyte loss during sample preparation [40]	Deuterated phthalates, parabens, BPA, and other EDC analogs
Chromatography Columns	Separation of analytes prior to MS detection	C18 columns for LC-MS; DB-5MS or equivalent for GC-MS
Enzymatic Deconjugation Reagents	Hydrolysis of conjugated EDC metabolites in urine	β-glucuronidase/arylsulfatase enzyme preparations
Matrix-Matched Calibration Standards	Accurate quantification accounting for matrix effects	Standards prepared in stripped or pooled human serum/urine

Analytical Challenges and Methodological Considerations

Biomonitoring of EDCs presents several significant challenges that require careful methodological consideration:

Sensitivity and Selectivity: EDCs often occur at trace concentrations (ng/mL or lower) in complex biological matrices, necessitating highly sensitive and selective detection methods. The use of tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) in selected reaction monitoring (SRM) mode provides the necessary specificity by monitoring specific precursor-product ion transitions [40].

Sample Contamination: The ubiquitous presence of EDCs in laboratory environments and reagents presents a significant risk of sample contamination. Procedural blanks must be included in every analytical batch to monitor and correct for potential contamination sources [40].

Quality Assurance: Implementing rigorous quality control measures is essential for generating reliable biomonitoring data. This includes the use of certified reference materials, participation in interlaboratory comparison programs, and adherence to established guidelines for biomonitoring studies [40].

Metabolite Profiling: For many EDCs, measuring the parent compound provides an incomplete exposure picture. Analysis of major metabolites (e.g., phthalate metabolites in urine) often provides a more accurate assessment of internal exposure and eliminates potential artifacts from sample contamination [63].

Advanced biomonitoring techniques provide the scientific foundation for understanding human exposure to EDCs from personal care and household products. The methodologies detailed in this guide—centered on mass spectrometric analysis of biological samples—enable researchers to generate precise, quantitative data on internal EDC exposures. As the field evolves, future directions include developing non-targeted analytical approaches for identifying novel EDCs and their metabolites, implementing mixture toxicity assessment frameworks to evaluate combined effects, and establishing standardized protocols for cross-study comparisons. These advances in exposure assessment science will be crucial for informing evidence-based policies aimed at reducing EDC exposures and protecting public health.

The study of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs)—exogenous substances that interfere with natural hormonal processes—demands sophisticated technological approaches to elucidate their mechanisms of action and assess their impact on human health [64] [60]. EDCs, prevalent in personal care and household products, include compounds such as phthalates, parabens, bisphenols, and ultraviolet filters [64] [65]. Exposure to these chemicals has been epidemiologically associated with an increased risk of cardiometabolic diseases, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and hormonal cancers [60] [65]. This whitepaper provides an in-depth technical guide to the emerging high-throughput screening (HTS) assays and omics technologies that are revolutionizing mechanistic studies of EDCs. We detail experimental protocols, present quantitative market data reflecting the adoption of these tools, and visualize core signaling pathways and workflows. The integration of these advanced methodologies is pivotal for identifying EDC hazards, understanding their pathogenic roles, and ultimately informing regulatory decisions to mitigate public health risks [66] [60] [67].

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals are a heterogeneous group of synthetic compounds that can mimic, block, or otherwise interfere with the body's endocrine system [60]. The defining characteristic of EDCs is their ability to cause adverse health effects at low doses, often with non-monotonic dose responses (where the dose-response curve is not linear) and trans-generational effects through epigenetic modifications [65]. With over 85,000 synthetic chemicals in commerce and approximately 1,000 classified as known or suspected EDCs, the scale of the potential problem is vast [60]. The complexity of EDC mechanisms, which may involve multiple hormone receptors and signaling pathways, necessitates a move away from traditional, low-throughput toxicological methods [60]. High-throughput screening and omics technologies enable the systematic and efficient profiling of thousands of chemicals, thereby accelerating the identification of hazardous substances and the unraveling of their modes of action [66] [67].

High-Throughput Screening (HTS) Assays for EDC Discovery

High-throughput screening comprises automated technologies that allow for the rapid testing of thousands to millions of chemical compounds against biological targets. The global HTS market, valued at USD 26.12 billion in 2025 and projected to reach USD 53.21 billion by 2032 (a CAGR of 10.7%), is driven significantly by the needs of drug discovery and toxicology, including EDC research [66].

Core HTS Technologies and Platforms

HTS platforms for EDC research are evolving from simple biochemical assays to complex, physiologically relevant systems.

Diagram 1: HTS workflow for EDC discovery, showing the integration of AI.

• Cell-Based Assays: Dominating the HTS technology segment with a 33.4% market share in 2025, cell-based assays are crucial for EDC research as they more accurately replicate complex biological systems compared to biochemical methods [66]. These assays provide insights into cellular processes, drug actions, and toxicity profiles, offering higher predictive value for clinical outcomes [66]. Key advancements include:

  • Phenotypic Screening: The fusion of high-content imaging with AI-driven analytics enables phenotypic discovery that can identify unexpected mechanisms of action, which is particularly valuable for EDCs with multi-target effects [67].
  • 3D Organoid and Organ-on-Chip Systems: These commercially available systems increasingly replicate human tissue physiology, boosting predictive accuracy and addressing the high clinical-trial failure rate linked to inadequate preclinical models [67]. For instance, organ-on-chip devices model drug-metabolism pathways that standard 2D cultures cannot capture [67].

• Instrumentation and Automation: The instruments segment (liquid handling systems, detectors, and readers) leads the HTS product market with a 49.3% share, driven by steady improvements in speed, precision, and reliability [66]. Advances in robotic liquid-handling are elevating throughput and reproducibility; computer-vision modules now guide pipetting accuracy in real time, cutting experimental variability by 85% compared with manual workflows [67]. These systems are essential for automating the precise dispensing and mixing of small sample volumes, a necessity for maintaining consistency across thousands of screening reactions [66].

• AI and In-Silico Triage: Artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping the HTS landscape by enhancing efficiency and lowering costs [66] [67]. Virtual screening powered by hypergraph neural networks can now predict drug-target interactions with experimental-level fidelity, shrinking the required wet-lab library size by up to 80% [67]. This computational triage concentrates physical screening on top-ranked hits, dramatically improving cost efficiency and throughput for EDC screening programs [67].

Quantitative Analysis of the HTS Market

Table 1: High-Throughput Screening Market Drivers and Restraints [67]

Factor	Impact on CAGR Forecast	Geographic Relevance	Impact Timeline
Drivers
Advances in robotic liquid-handling & imaging systems	+2.1%	Global, North America & EU lead adoption	Medium term (2-4 years)
Rising pharma/biotech R&D spending	+1.8%	Global, concentrated in major pharma hubs	Long term (≥ 4 years)
Adoption of cell-based & 3-D assays	+1.5%	North America & EU core, expanding to APAC	Medium term (2-4 years)
AI/ML in-silico triage	+1.3%	Global, Silicon Valley & Boston clusters lead	Short term (≤ 2 years)
Restraints
High capital expenditure for automated workcells	-1.4%	Global, smaller biotech firms most affected	Medium term (2-4 years)
Shortage of skilled assay-automation specialists	-0.8%	North America & EU, emerging pressure in APAC	Long term (≥ 4 years)
Data-quality & reproducibility issues	-0.6%	Global, standards vary by region	Short term (≤ 2 years)

Table 2: HTS Market Size and Segment Share Analysis [66] [67]

Segment	2024/2025 Market Share	Projected CAGR & Trends
Overall Global Market	USD 26.12 Bn (2025)	10.7% (2025-2032)
By Technology
Cell-Based Assays	33.4% (2025)	Growing focus on physiological relevance
By Application
Drug Discovery	45.6% (2025)	Foundation for hit identification
Toxicology & ADME	53.56% (Primary & Secondary Screening, 2024)	13.82% (through 2030)
By Product & Service
Instruments	49.3% (2025)	Driven by automation and precision
Services	42.19% (Reagents & Consumables, 2024)	15.56% (fastest growing)

Omics Technologies for Mechanistic Elucidation

While HTS identifies potential EDCs, omics technologies are indispensable for deconstructing their specific mechanisms of action. These technologies provide a comprehensive, systems-level view of the molecular changes induced by EDC exposure.

Key Omics Approaches in EDC Research

• Genomics and Epigenomics: EDCs can cause changes in gene expression and epigenetic modifications that may be heritable. Techniques like CRISPR-based screening, such as the CIBER platform, enable genome-wide studies of vesicle release regulators within weeks, boosting efficiency in analyzing cell-to-cell communication disrupted by EDCs [66]. Furthermore, EDCs can induce trans-generational effects through epigenetic mechanisms, altering DNA methylation and histone modification patterns [65].

• Transcriptomics: Methods like RNA sequencing allow researchers to compare gene expression profiles between healthy and EDC-exposed tissues or cell lines. A typical application involves creating a scatter plot of gene expression data, where each point represents a gene, the x-axis shows its expression in control conditions, and the y-axis shows expression after EDC exposure. Genes significantly upregulated or downregulated by the EDC fall away from the diagonal, providing immediate visual cues for further investigation [68].

• Proteomics and Metabolomics: Advanced mass spectrometry (MS) is the workhorse for analyzing protein and metabolite changes. As noted in human biomonitoring studies, sophisticated MS equipment has been crucial for developing methods to detect EDCs and their metabolites in complex biological matrices like blood and urine [64]. Proteomics can reveal how EDCs alter protein folding and function, which can be visualized in 3D molecular models color-coded based on stability or interaction changes [68].

Visualizing EDC Mechanisms of Action

The following diagram synthesizes the primary molecular pathways through which EDCs from personal care and household products interfere with the endocrine system to promote cardiometabolic diseases, as identified in recent research [60] [65].

Diagram 2: EDC mechanisms of action leading to cardiometabolic disease.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

This section provides actionable methodologies for conducting HTS and omics investigations into EDCs.

Protocol 1: High-Throughput Cell-Based Assay for Estrogenic Activity

Objective: To screen a library of chemicals found in personal care products for estrogen receptor (ER) activation in a high-throughput format [66] [60].

Materials:

• Reporter Cell Line: HEK293 or MCF-7 cells stably transfected with an Estrogen Response Element (ERE) driving the expression of a luciferase reporter gene.
• Test Compounds: Library of suspected EDCs (e.g., parabens, UV filters). Prepare a 10 mM stock solution in DMSO.
• Controls: 17β-estradiol (E2, 10 nM) as a positive control, and ICI 182,780 (1 µM) as an ER antagonist control. Vehicle (DMSO) as a negative control.
• Equipment: Automated liquid handler, multi-well plate luminometer, CO2 incubator, sterile cell culture hood.
• Consumables: 384-well white, clear-bottom tissue culture plates.

Procedure:

• Cell Seeding: Using an automated liquid handler, seed reporter cells into 384-well plates at a density of 5,000 cells per well in estrogen-free culture medium. Incubate for 24 hours.
• Compound Treatment: Serially dilute test compounds in estrogen-free medium. Aspirate the old medium from the plates and add the compound-containing medium to the cells. Include positive, negative, and antagonist controls on each plate. Perform all treatments in triplicate.
• Incubation: Incubate the cells with the compounds for 16-24 hours at 37°C and 5% CO2.
• Luciferase Detection: Allow a commercially available luciferase assay kit to equilibrate to room temperature. Add the luciferase substrate to each well using the liquid handler.
• Signal Measurement: Measure luminescence immediately on a plate reader. Integrate the signal for 1 second per well.
• Data Analysis:
  • Calculate the mean luminescence for each treatment group.
  • Normalize the data as a percentage of the positive control (E2) response.
  • Generate dose-response curves and calculate the half-maximal effective concentration (EC50) for active compounds.

Protocol 2: Metabolomic Profiling of Serum from EDC-Exposed Subjects

Objective: To identify altered metabolic pathways in human subjects with high exposure to phthalates using untargeted metabolomics [64] [60].

Materials:

• Samples: Human serum samples collected in EDTA tubes from cohorts with high and low phthalate exposure (as determined by urinary biomonitoring). Store at -80°C.
• Reagents: Methanol, acetonitrile, water (all LC-MS grade), formic acid.
• Internal Standards: A mix of stable isotope-labeled compounds for quality control.
• Equipment: High-resolution liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) system (e.g., UHPLC-QTOF), refrigerated centrifuge, vortex mixer.

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation:
  • Thaw serum samples on ice. Vortex briefly.
  • Precipitate proteins by adding 300 µL of cold methanol to 100 µL of serum. Vortex for 1 minute.
  • Incubate at -20°C for 1 hour.
  • Centrifuge at 14,000 x g for 15 minutes at 4°C.
  • Transfer the clear supernatant to a new LC-MS vial for analysis.
• LC-MS Analysis:
  • Chromatography: Use a C18 reversed-phase column (2.1 x 100 mm, 1.7 µm). The mobile phase consists of (A) water with 0.1% formic acid and (B) acetonitrile with 0.1% formic acid. Employ a linear gradient from 2% to 98% B over 18 minutes at a flow rate of 0.3 mL/min.
  • Mass Spectrometry: Operate the QTOF in both positive and negative electrospray ionization (ESI) modes. Set the mass range to 50-1200 m/z. Use a data-independent acquisition (DIA) mode to fragment all ions.
• Data Processing and Analysis:
  • Use software (e.g., XCMS, Progenesis QI) for peak picking, alignment, and normalization.
  • Perform multivariate statistical analysis, including Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Orthogonal Projections to Latent Structures-Discriminant Analysis (OPLS-DA), to distinguish the metabolic profiles of the exposure groups.
  • Identify significantly altered metabolites (p < 0.05, fold-change > 2) by matching their accurate mass and fragmentation spectra against databases (e.g., HMDB, METLIN).
  • Perform pathway enrichment analysis (using KEGG, MetaboAnalyst) to identify disrupted biological pathways.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for EDC Mechanistic Studies

Research Tool	Function & Application in EDC Studies	Example Use Case
CRISPR Screening Platforms	Enables genome-wide functional studies to identify genes involved in EDC response or toxicity.	CIBER platform for studying extracellular vesicle release regulators affected by EDCs [66].
Reporter Assay Kits	Measure the activation of specific hormonal pathways (e.g., estrogen, androgen, thyroid) by EDCs.	Luciferase-based ER activation assay to screen for xenoestrogens [60].
Organ-on-Chip Systems	Microfluidic devices containing living human cells that emulate organ-level physiology for more predictive toxicity testing.	Liver-on-a-chip to model EDC metabolism and toxicity in a human-relevant system [66] [67].
Mass Spectrometry Kits	Targeted and untargeted analysis of EDCs, their metabolites, and endogenous biomolecules in biological samples.	Human biomonitoring of phthalate metabolites in urine or BPA in serum [64] [60].
Cell-Based Assay Kits	Pre-optimized kits for cytotoxicity, apoptosis, oxidative stress, and other endpoints relevant to EDC mechanisms.	Melanocortin Receptor Reporter Assay family to study EDC effects on metabolic receptors [66].

The convergence of high-throughput screening assays and multi-omics technologies provides an unprecedented capability to dissect the mechanisms by which EDCs in personal care and household products threaten human health. The market data confirms the rapid adoption and financial investment in these tools, particularly in AI-enhanced automation, physiologically relevant 3D models, and sophisticated bioanalytical platforms [66] [67]. The experimental protocols detailed herein offer a roadmap for researchers to generate robust, reproducible data on EDC activity. As the scientific consensus on the risks posed by EDCs solidifies [60] [65], these emerging tools will be fundamental not only in advancing mechanistic understanding but also in strengthening the evidence base for regulatory action and the development of safer alternatives.

Risk Mitigation, Regulatory Navigation, and Reformulation Strategies

The global regulatory landscape for chemicals in consumer products is undergoing its most significant transformation in decades. For researchers studying endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in personal care and household products, understanding the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the EU's microplastics restriction is crucial. These regulatory frameworks directly impact the study of pervasive EDCs such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), phthalates, and other substances that can interfere with hormonal systems. The recent regulatory changes enhance requirements for safety substantiation, chemical reporting, and the phase-out of certain intentionally added substances, creating both new research obligations and opportunities for the scientific community [69] [70]. This guide provides a technical overview of these regulations with a specific focus on their implications for EDC research.

MoCRA: Expanded FDA Authority and Research Implications

Core Provisions and Timelines

The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) represents the most significant expansion of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) authority over cosmetics since 1938. Its provisions are particularly relevant for EDC research due to its focus on ingredient safety and transparency [70]. Key provisions include:

• Facility Registration & Product Listing: Mandatory registration for all domestic and foreign facilities manufacturing or processing cosmetics distributed in the United States, with biennial renewal requirements. All cosmetic products must be listed with the FDA, including their ingredients, with annual updates [69] [70].
• Safety Substantiation: Companies must maintain records supporting "adequate safety substantiation" for their products, a requirement that directly impacts EDC researchers who may be called upon to design and execute safety studies [70].
• Serious Adverse Event Reporting: Required reporting of serious adverse events to the FDA within 15 business days, with additional reporting required if new medical information arises within one year [69] [70].
• Mandatory Recall Authority: The FDA now has authority to order a mandatory recall if a cosmetic product is found to be adulterated or misbranded and likely to cause serious adverse health consequences [70].

Table 1: Key MoCRA Upcoming Rulemaking and Deadlines

Regulatory Action	Key Focus	Anticipated Timeline	Research Implications
Fragrance Allergen Labeling	Mandates disclosure of specific fragrance allergens on labels [69] [71]	NPRM: May 2026 [71] [72]	Increases transparency for allergen and potential EDC research
Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP)	Establishes GMP requirements for cosmetic facilities [69] [70]	NPRM: To be determined (moved to long-term actions list) [71] [72]	Standardizes production quality for consistent research samples
Asbestos Testing in Talc	Standardizes testing methods for asbestos in talc-containing cosmetics [69] [71]	Final Rule: March 2026 [72]	Provides validated methods for contaminant detection
Formaldehyde Ban	Prohibits formaldehyde in hair smoothing products [69] [71]	NPRM: December 2025 [71] [72]	Addresses a known carcinogen of concern

MoCRA's Intersection with EDC Research

For EDC researchers, MoCRA's safety substantiation requirement represents a significant opportunity. The mandate for "adequate safety substantiation" requires manufacturers to demonstrate product safety, potentially increasing demand for robust endocrine disruption screening and dose-response studies [70]. Furthermore, the upcoming FDA report on PFAS in cosmetics will provide a valuable summary of the scientific evidence regarding PFAS safety, potentially identifying data gaps that require further EDC-focused investigation [70].

TSCA and PFAS Reporting: Data Generation for Research

Evolving PFAS Reporting Requirements

Section 8(a)(7) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) establishes a one-time reporting obligation for manufacturers and importers of PFAS—a class of chemicals that includes many potential EDCs. The current rule requires reporting on PFAS manufactured between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2022 [73] [74]. However, significant changes were proposed in November 2025 that would narrow the scope of reportable activities [73] [74].

Table 2: TSCA PFAS Reporting Requirements: Current vs. Proposed (as of November 2025)

Requirement Aspect	Current Rule	Proposed Changes	Research Utility
Reporting Window	Opens April 13, 2026; 6-month reporting period [74]	Open 60 days after final rule; 3-month reporting period [73]	Accelerates data availability
Articles Containing PFAS	Reportable [73]	Exempt from reporting [73] [74]	Limits data on certain product types
De Minimis Concentration	No exemption; all concentrations reportable [74]	Exemption for PFAS in mixtures/articles below 0.1% [73] [74]	Focuses on higher concentration sources
By-products & Impurities	Reportable [73]	Exempt if not used commercially [73] [74]	Reduces data on unintended synthesis
Research & Development	Reportable [73]	Exempt for small quantities for R&D [73] [74]	Protects research activities

It is important to note that the TSCA PFAS reporting rule contains an exclusion for chemicals regulated as drugs, cosmetics, or devices under the FD&C Act, though applicability can be complex when chemicals have multiple end uses [73].

TSCA's 8(d) Rule Reconsideration for Health and Safety Studies

Beyond PFAS-specific reporting, EPA is also reconsidering a TSCA Section 8(d) rule that would require manufacturers of 16 specific chemicals to report unpublished health and safety studies [75]. This rule, challenged in court, is being reconsidered with potential changes to exemptions, reporting thresholds, and the lookback period. The outcome of this reconsideration (expected to take 12-18 months) could make significant unpublished data on these chemicals available to EDC researchers [75].

EU Microplastics Restriction: A Focus on Intentional Addition

Restriction Scope and Phase-Out Timeline

Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2055 restricts synthetic polymer microparticles (SPMs), commonly known as microplastics, that are intentionally added to products. These particles are defined as solid, synthetic polymer particles that are non-biodegradable, insoluble, and smaller than 5mm (or 15mm for fibers) [76] [77]. Many microplastics are potential EDCs or can act as vectors for other EDCs, making this restriction particularly relevant.

The regulation employs a phased implementation approach with different deadlines for various product categories:

• Immediate Ban (Effective October 17, 2023): Loose plastic glitter for arts and crafts, toys, and other non-essential consumer products that readily release microplastics [78] [76].
• Cosmetics Transition Periods:
  • Rinse-off products (e.g., exfoliants): October 17, 2027 [78] [76]
  • Leave-on products (e.g., creams): October 17, 2029 [78] [76]
  • Make-up, lip, and nail products: October 17, 2035 [78] [76]
• Other Product Categories: Detergents, waxes, fertilizing products, and plant protection products have transitional periods extending to 2028-2031 [76].

Table 3: Key Compliance Obligations for Exempted or Transitional Products

Obligation	Required Actions	Deadlines	Targeted Entities
Information Transfer	Provide instructions for use/disposal to prevent release; compliance statement; polymer identity/quantity on label/SDS [76] [77]	October 17, 2025 (for industrial SPM, food additives, risk-controlled uses) [76]	Suppliers of microplastics
Annual Reporting	Submit reports on quantity of microplastics released to environment to ECHA via IUCLID/REACH-IT [76]	May 31, 2026 (for 2025 data); May 31, 2027 (for 2026 data) [76]	Manufacturers, industrial downstream users

Critical Exemptions and Research Considerations

The microplastics restriction contains several critical exemptions that researchers must understand:

• Biodegradable Polymers: Polymers that are biodegradable (meeting specific criteria) are excluded from the restriction [78] [76].
• Natural and Inorganic Polymers: Polymers that are natural (not chemically modified) or inorganic are not considered SPMs [78].
• Permanently Contained SPMs: SPMs that are "permanently incorporated in a solid matrix" (e.g., in glitter glue, paints, or inks) or contained by technical means are derogated [78].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Methods

Navigating this regulatory landscape requires specific methodological approaches and reagents for studying EDCs in regulated products.

Table 4: Essential Research Materials and Methods for Regulatory Compliance Studies

Reagent/Method Solution	Function in Regulatory Research	Application Example
LC-HRMS (Liquid Chromatography-High Resolution Mass Spectrometry)	Sensitive identification and quantification of known and unknown PFAS, fragrance allergens, and other EDCs at low concentrations [69]	Screening cosmetics for PFAS covered by TSCA reporting and state bans
In Vitro Bioassays	High-throughput screening for endocrine activity via receptor-binding assays (ERα, ERβ, AR, etc.) and transcriptional activation assays	Safety substantiation for MoCRA to detect endocrine activity of complex mixtures
Certified Reference Materials	Quantification and method validation for specific regulated chemicals (PFAS, formaldehyde, fragrance allergens)	Accurate quantification of formaldehyde in hair smoothing products for proposed FDA ban
Passive Sampling Devices	Monitoring environmental release of microplastics and associated EDCs from products during use and disposal	Fulfilling annual reporting requirements for industrial microplastics under EU restriction
Standardized Test Dusts	Positive controls for studies on microplastic release from textiles and other articles during abrasion or use	Evaluating microplastic release from products to determine EU restriction applicability

Integrated Experimental Workflow for Regulatory Compliance

The following diagram illustrates a comprehensive testing strategy for evaluating personal care products against the key regulatory frameworks discussed.

Integrated Testing Strategy for Product Compliance

The simultaneous implementation of MoCRA, TSCA PFAS reporting, and the EU microplastics restriction creates a complex but interconnected regulatory matrix for 2025 and beyond. For researchers in the field of EDC exposure, these developments create both challenges and significant opportunities:

• Data Transparency: The reporting requirements under TSCA and the information disclosure under the EU microplastics restriction will generate valuable datasets for identifying exposure sources and prioritizing chemicals for further EDC research.
• Safety Substantiation Standardization: MoCRA's requirement for safety records, combined with standardized testing methods for asbestos in talc, points toward a future where more rigorous and standardized safety assessment methodologies—including for endocrine disruption—may become the norm.
• Global Research Alignment: While these regulations originate in different jurisdictions, their collective effect is to create a more harmonized approach to chemical risk assessment globally, enabling more comparable research outcomes across international boundaries.

The evolving regulatory landscape underscores the essential role of rigorous scientific research in informing policy decisions and protecting public health from potential EDC exposures. Researchers who understand these frameworks will be better positioned to design relevant studies, leverage newly available data, and contribute meaningfully to product safety in the context of endocrine disruption.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are natural or human-made substances that can mimic, block, or interfere with the body's hormones, which are part of the endocrine system [2]. These chemicals are linked with a wide array of health issues in both wildlife and people. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) notes that there are nearly 85,000 human-made chemicals in the world, and 1,000 or more could be endocrine disruptors based on their unique properties [2]. This whitepaper focuses on three prevalent classes of EDCs—PFAS, phthalates, and parabens—which are ubiquitous in personal care and household products, presenting significant challenges for product reformulation aimed at reducing public health risks.

The urgency for reformulation is underscored by population-level exposure data. According to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), more than 90% of US adults have detectable levels of common EDCs, such as bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates, in their urine [79]. Exposures to these EDCs have been linked to chronic diseases including breast cancer, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and infertility [79]. Exposure during pregnancy may have a lifelong impact on the fetus, predisposing them to adverse health effects later in life, including cancers, IQ loss, neurotoxicity, and childhood obesity [79]. The body's normal endocrine functioning involves very small changes in hormone levels, and even minor disruptions caused by EDCs may cause significant developmental and biological effects [2].

Chemical Profiles and Health Implications

Properties and Health Concerns of Target EDCs

Table 1: Key Characteristics and Health Concerns of Target EDC Classes

EDC Class	Primary Functions	Common Product Applications	Documented Health Concerns
PFAS	Water/stain resistance; texture conditioning	Cosmetics (lipsticks, eyeshadows, moisturizers); waterproof clothing; non-stick cookware; firefighting foam	Hormone disruption; reduced immune response; cancer; reproductive toxicity; bioaccumulation [2] [80] [81]
Phthalates	Plastic flexibility; fragrance fixation	Vinyl flooring; personal care products (nail polish, hair spray); fragrances; medical device tubing	Anti-androgenic effects; reduced anogenital distance in males; infertility; type 2 diabetes; asthma; ADHD-related behaviors [2] [79]
Parabens	Antimicrobial preservation	Cosmetics; skincare products; food packaging	Estrogenic and anti-androgenic activity; adrenal & thyroid disruption; reduced fertility; developmental-behavioral changes in animals [79] [82]

Exposure Pathways and Population Burden

Human exposure to these EDCs occurs through multiple pathways, including diet, air, skin contact, and water [2]. The dermal route is particularly significant for personal care products, with chemicals being absorbed directly through the skin during product application [83]. Incidental ingestion via hand-to-mouth contact and inhalation of particulates, vapors, or aerosols also contribute to overall exposure burden [83]. Americans spend about 90% or more of their time indoors, where levels of pollutants may be 2–5 times higher, and occasionally more than 100 times higher, than outdoor levels, increasing the significance of consumer product exposures [83].

Disparities in exposure patterns exist across population subgroups. Research evaluating personal care product use by Environmental Working Group hazard scores found that the relative risk of recent use of a hair product with a high hazard score was twice as high in non-Hispanic Black women compared to non-Hispanic White women [61]. Another study noted that women are the primary consumers of many personal care products, creating potentially higher exposure burdens [79]. These exposure patterns are concerning given that EDCs with relatively short half-lives in the body (i.e., 6 hours to 3 days) indicate ubiquitous and constant exposure sources in our everyday environment [79].

Methodological Frameworks for Exposure Assessment and Intervention

Biomonitoring and Exposure Reduction Protocols

The Reducing Exposures to Endocrine Disruptors (REED) study provides a robust methodological framework for assessing EDC exposure and evaluating intervention strategies [79]. This approach combines urinary biomonitoring with educational interventions to empower individuals to reduce their EDC exposures. The protocol involves:

• Baseline Urine Collection: Participants provide first-morning void urine samples in pre-acidified, pre-labeled 30mL polypropylene specimen cups, which are frozen immediately at -20°C and shipped on dry ice to the analytical laboratory.

• Biomonitoring Analysis: Urine samples are analyzed for EDC metabolites using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The analytical panel typically includes bisphenols (BPA, BPS, BPF), phthalate metabolites (MBP, MBzP, MEHP, MiBP), paraben metabolites (methyl-, ethyl-, propyl-, butyl-paraben), and benzophenone-3 (oxybenzone). Creatinine adjustment is used to account for urine dilution.

• Personalized Report-Back: Participants receive individualized reports showing their urinary levels of each EDC compared to population percentiles, along with information about health effects, potential exposure sources, and personalized recommendations to reduce exposure.

• Educational Intervention: A self-directed online interactive curriculum with live counseling sessions provides targeted education about EDC sources and avoidance strategies, modeled after the Diabetes Prevention Program.

• Follow-up Assessment: Post-intervention urine collection and analysis at 3-6 months evaluates changes in EDC exposure levels, complemented by surveys assessing changes in environmental health literacy and risk reduction behaviors.

Table 2: Key Analytical Methods for EDC Assessment in Intervention Studies

Research Component	Method/Tool	Key Specifications	Application in EDC Research
EDC Biomonitoring	LC-MS/MS	Quantitative analysis of EDC metabolites in urine; creatinine adjustment; quality control with certified reference materials	Measures internal dose of multiple EDC classes; establishes exposure baselines; tracks intervention effectiveness [79]
Exposure Source Identification	Product Inventory & Ingredient Analysis	Detailed product use diaries; ingredient label documentation; correlation with biomarker levels	Identifies primary exposure sources; informs personalized recommendations; links specific products to body burden [61]
Behavioral Assessment	Environmental Health Literacy (EHL) Surveys	Validated questionnaires assessing knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to EDC exposure	Evaluates intervention impact; identifies knowledge gaps; measures behavior change readiness [79]

Experimental Workflow for Reformulation Studies

The following diagram illustrates the comprehensive experimental workflow for assessing EDC exposure and evaluating intervention effectiveness:

Experimental Workflow for EDC Intervention Studies

Technical Challenges in Reformulation and Alternative Assessment

Functional Performance and Stability Considerations

Replacing established EDCs in product formulations presents significant technical challenges related to maintaining product efficacy, shelf life, and user experience. Parabens, for instance, are favored in cosmetics due to their broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity, effectiveness at low concentrations, and stability across wide pH and temperature ranges [82] [84]. Finding alternatives that match these performance characteristics without introducing new safety concerns remains a formidable hurdle. The cost implications of reformulation are substantial, as alternative preservatives may be more expensive or require specialized equipment and processing conditions [85] [84].

For PFAS, the functional challenges are even more pronounced. These chemicals provide exceptional oil and water repellency, thermal stability, and surface smoothing properties that are difficult to replicate with alternative chemistry [80] [81]. In cosmetics, PFAS are valued for their ability to condition and smooth the skin and hair, making them appear shiny, and to affect product consistency and texture [80]. Research indicates that the best non-fluorinated waterproofs can perform as effectively as their fluorinated counterparts, suggesting viable alternatives exist for some applications [81]. However, performance gaps remain in more demanding applications where extreme repellency or durability is required.

Analytical and Assessment Methodologies

A significant technical challenge in reformulation lies in the analytical detection of EDCs and their alternatives. Many replacement chemicals have different chemical structures that may not be captured by existing analytical methods designed for traditional EDCs [80]. For PFAS in particular, the specific "fingerprint" or analytical standard for the specific PFAS may not be available, making their detection and quantitation challenging [80]. This creates substantial data gaps in understanding the full scope of exposure and potential health impacts of alternatives.

The assessment of potential health risks associated with alternative chemicals also presents methodological challenges. There is limited research on whether chemicals in cosmetics are absorbed through the skin at levels that could be harmful to human health [80]. Furthermore, the toxicological profiles for many alternative chemicals remain incomplete, particularly regarding endocrine disruption potential, chronic health effects, and mixture toxicity [80]. The U.S. FDA is currently assessing the use of PFAS in cosmetic products and the scientific evidence regarding their safety, with a report scheduled for publication by December 29, 2025, as mandated by the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) [80].

Promising Alternative Technologies and Formulation Strategies

Preservative Systems for Paraben Replacement

Table 3: Alternative Preservative Systems for Personal Care Formulations

Alternative Category	Specific Ingredients	Mechanism of Action	Advantages	Limitations
Natural Preservatives	Neem, tea tree, and rosemary essential oils; Vitamin E (Tocopherol)	Antimicrobial properties from plant compounds; antioxidant protection	Perceived as safer and more environmentally friendly; additional skin benefits [85]	Variable efficacy; potential for skin irritation; may require higher concentrations [85] [82]
Synthetic Alternatives	Phenoxyethanol; Ethylhexylglycerin; Benzyl Alcohol	Disruption of microbial cell membranes; preservative enhancement	Broad regulatory approval; effective at low concentrations; improved skin feel [85] [84]	Potential for sensitivity reactions; may require combination systems [85]
Innovative Systems	Polylysine; Radish root ferment filtrate; Caprylyl glycol + Ethylhexylglycerin	Peptide-mediated antimicrobial activity; fermentation-derived protection	Broad-spectrum activity; biodegradable; multi-functional benefits [85] [84]	Higher production costs; formulation compatibility challenges [85]

PFAS and Phthalate Replacement Technologies

For PFAS replacement in water- and stain-resistant applications, several promising technologies are emerging. Side-chain fluorinated polymers with high molecular weights are being developed to provide durability while potentially reducing bioavailability and toxicity [81]. Non-fluorinated hydrocarbon-based repellents, silicone technologies, and bio-based wax treatments offer alternative approaches to achieving water repellency without fluorine chemistry [81]. Research indicates that the best non-fluorinated waterproofs are as good at repelling water as their fluorinated counterparts, demonstrating technical viability for many applications [81].

Phthalate replacement strategies focus on alternative plasticizers and fragrance carriers. Citrate esters, adipates, trimellitates, and bio-based plasticizers derived from vegetable oils offer potential alternatives for flexible PVC applications [2]. In cosmetics and fragrances, non-phthalate solvents such as dipropylene glycol, triethyl citrate, and benzyl benzoate can serve as effective fragrance carriers without endocrine disruption concerns [2]. Essential oil blends and encapsulation technologies provide additional approaches to fragrance longevity without phthalate fixation agents.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Materials

Table 4: Essential Research Materials for EDC and Alternative Assessment Studies

Research Tool	Specifications	Research Application	Key Considerations
Certified Reference Standards	Certified purity (>98%); isotope-labeled internal standards; mixture of native compounds	LC-MS/MS method development and validation; quantitative biomonitoring; quality assurance	Should include major metabolites; stability under storage conditions; compatibility with analytical methods [79]
Artificial Skin Models	Stratified epidermis with barrier properties; standardized surface characteristics	Dermal permeation studies; assessment of topical product absorption	Correlation with human in vivo data; reproducibility; appropriate membrane thickness and composition [80]
Hormone Receptor Assays	Cell lines with endocrine-responsive elements; reporter gene systems; receptor binding assays	Screening for endocrine activity; potency ranking of alternatives	Should cover multiple hormone pathways (estrogen, androgen, thyroid); sensitivity at environmentally relevant concentrations [2] [79]
High-Throughput Screening Platforms	Robotic liquid handling; multi-well formats; automated imaging and data capture	Rapid toxicity screening; prioritization of chemicals for further testing	Integration with ToxCast/Tox21 programs; predictive model development [2]

The reformulation of personal care and household products to eliminate PFAS, phthalates, and parabens presents complex scientific and technical challenges, but viable alternative technologies are emerging. Success in this endeavor requires interdisciplinary approaches that integrate analytical chemistry, toxicology, materials science, and exposure science. Critical research gaps that must be addressed include better understanding of dermal absorption of alternative chemicals, long-term health impacts of replacements, and cumulative exposures across multiple products and pathways.

Promising research directions include the development of high-throughput screening methods to rapidly identify endocrine activity, advancement of green chemistry principles in material design, and implementation of systematic alternative assessment frameworks that comprehensively evaluate health and environmental impacts across a chemical's lifecycle. Furthermore, effective intervention strategies that incorporate biomonitoring and personalized feedback show significant promise in reducing individual EDC exposures, as demonstrated by the REED study [79]. As research advances, collaboration between academia, industry, and regulatory agencies will be essential to ensure that replacements for concerning EDCs are not only functionally effective but also demonstrably safer for human health and the environment.

Managing Supply Chain Disruptions and Sourcing Compliant, Sustainable Raw Materials

For researchers investigating endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC) exposure from personal care and household products, the integrity of raw materials is not merely a logistical concern but a foundational scientific prerequisite. Supply chain disruptions and the procurement of non-compliant materials can introduce catastrophic confounding variables, compromising study validity and reproducibility. Nearly 85,000 human-made chemicals exist in the world, with over 1,000 suspected to be EDCs based on their endocrine-interfering properties [2]. The exposome—the cumulative measure of environmental influences and associated biological responses—conceptualizes the complex exposure landscape that researchers must accurately replicate and deconstruct [86]. This technical guide provides a framework for securing a resilient supply of raw materials characterized by verifiable composition and minimal EDC contamination, thereby ensuring the highest standards of data integrity in environmental health research.

A precise understanding of common EDCs, their sources, and the evolving regulatory landscape is essential for defining sourcing parameters and assessing contamination risk in research materials.

Common EDCs and Their Product Applications

Table 1: High-Priority Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals and Their Common Sources

Chemical Class	Specific Compounds	Common Product Applications	Primary Health Concerns
Phthalates	DEHP, DBP, BBP, DEP [22]	Plastic packaging, fragrances, synthetic detergents, fabric softeners [2] [27]	Interference with testosterone production, developmental issues [22]
Bisphenols	Bisphenol A (BPA), Bisphenol B (BPB), Bisphenol F (BPF) [87]	Food can linings, plastic containers, thermal receipt paper [2]	Reduced egg quality, fertility issues [22]
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)	PFOA, PFOS	Non-stick cookware, stain-resistant carpets, textiles, firefighting foam [2]	Diminished immune response, metabolic disruption [2]
Parabens	Methylparaben, Propylparaben	Preservatives in cosmetics and personal care products [27]	Estrogenic activity, potential breast cancer links
Flame Retardants	Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)	Furniture foam, carpet, electronics, building insulation [2] [22]	Thyroid hormone disruption, neurodevelopmental disorders [22]
Pesticides/Herbicides	Atrazine, Chlorpyrifos, DDT [22]	Agricultural weed and insect control	Preterm birth, early pregnancy loss, developmental delays [22]

The Evolving Regulatory Context

The regulatory environment is undergoing significant transformation, directly impacting the availability and specification of raw materials. The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA) represents the most significant US regulatory overhaul in decades, introducing mandatory facility registration, product listing, safety substantiation, and adverse event reporting [88]. Furthermore, a complex patchwork of state-level regulations, such as California's Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, has banned specific chemicals like PFAS, formaldehyde, and certain phthalates, creating a fragmented market where a product compliant in one state may be prohibited in another [88]. This regulatory heterogeneity necessitates that researchers specify not only the chemical composition of sourced materials but also their jurisdictional compliance status to ensure consistency across long-term studies.

Strategic Sourcing and Supply Chain Disruption Management

Building a resilient supply chain for research materials requires a proactive, multi-faceted strategy that anticipates and mitigates both internal and external disruption risks.

Causes and Impacts of Supply Chain Disruption

Supply chain disruptions are events that hinder the flow of materials, services, or goods, potentially causing production slowdowns, shutdowns, or significant cost overruns in research programs [89]. These disruptions originate from two primary sources:

• Internal Causes: Issues within the organization or its direct operations, including equipment failure, unoptimized logistics, inaccurate forecasting leading to stockouts, and poor communication with suppliers [89].
• External Causes: Uncontrollable outside forces, such as sudden geopolitical conflicts (e.g., trade wars, regional conflicts), rapid shifts in consumer demand, sudden raw material shortages, and extreme weather events [89] [90]. For instance, geopolitical unrest can lead to tariffs, supply bottlenecks, and heightened price volatility for critical research chemicals [90].

Building a Resilient Supply Chain Strategy

Table 2: Strategies for Supply Chain Disruption Management in Research

Strategy	Application to Research Material Sourcing	Key Actions
Supplier Diversification	Reduce reliance on a single supplier or geographic region for key reagents and raw materials.	Build and maintain a qualified portfolio of suppliers for critical materials; consider onshoring or nearshoring for essential items [90].
Enhanced Visibility & Data-Driven Forecasting	Gain end-to-end insight into the supply chain to anticipate shortages.	Implement digital inventory management; use IoT sensors for tracking; leverage AI-enhanced forecasting for key materials [89].
Centralized Compliance Management	Streamline the management of safety data sheets (SDS), certificates of analysis (CoA), and regulatory documentation.	Use a centralized digital platform to manage supplier documentation, facility registrations, and product listings for audit readiness [88].
Strong Supplier Relationships	Foster communication and collaboration with key suppliers.	Prioritize partners who provide transparency into their own sourcing and manufacturing practices, enabling better risk assessment.

The overarching goal is to build supply chain resilience—the ability to recover from disruptions, pivot quickly, and minimize the impact of unavoidable events. This involves nurturing an extensive supplier network, optimizing internal processes, and digitizing supply chain aspects to maximize end-to-end visibility for informed decision-making [89].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Analytical Methods for EDC Detection and Verification

Verifying the purity and composition of sourced materials requires a robust analytical toolkit. The following workflow and reagents are essential for characterizing raw materials and confirming the absence of EDC contaminants.

Experimental Workflow for Material Verification

The following diagram outlines a generalized protocol for screening and verifying raw materials for EDC contamination.

Research Reagent Solutions for EDC Analysis

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for EDC Detection and Verification

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Brief Protocol Notes
Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) Cartridges (e.g., C18, HLB)	Pre-concentration and clean-up of target EDCs from liquid samples or material extracts prior to analysis.	Condition with methanol and water. Pass sample through, dry cartridge, and elute analytes with organic solvent [87].
Deuterated Internal Standards (e.g., BPA-d16, DEHP-d4)	Added to samples prior to extraction to correct for analytical variability and matrix effects in mass spectrometry.	Spike a known concentration into every sample and calibration standard for quantitative accuracy.
LC-MS/MS Grade Solvents (e.g., Methanol, Acetonitrile)	Used for sample extraction, mobile phase preparation, and instrument calibration to minimize background interference.	Use high-purity solvents exclusively to prevent contamination and maintain instrument sensitivity.
Recombinant Cell Lines (e.g., YES, ERα CALUX, AR CALUX)	Detect functional endocrine activity (estrogenic, androgenic) in a sample extract, identifying known/unknown EDCs.	Expose cells to sample extract for 24h. Measure luciferase activity as a proxy for receptor activation [27].
Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) for target EDCs	Used for calibration and quality control in chemical analysis to ensure accuracy and traceability.	Create a multi-point calibration curve for quantitation and include CRM as a quality control check.

Detailed Protocol: Identification of EDC Combinations via Association Rule Mining

A novel computational approach to understanding co-occurring EDCs in complex products involves association rule mining, as demonstrated by a study analyzing 11,064 household chemical products [27].

• Objective: To identify frequent combinations of EDCs in consumer products that warrant prioritized mixture toxicity testing.
• Methodology:
  • Data Compilation: Ingredients from the product database were matched to 1,241 unique chemical identifiers.
  • EDC Identification: Chemicals were cross-referenced with the ToxCast database to identify those with known endocrine activity (estrogenicity, androgenicity, thyroid disruption, steroidogenesis).
  • Association Rule Mining: This machine learning technique was applied to the dataset to discover frequent co-occurrence patterns of chemicals within single products. The algorithm identifies rules of the form {Chemical A} -> {Chemical B}, indicating that if A is present, B is likely also present.
• Key Findings: The study identified 293 EDCs, with over two-thirds of products containing more than one. Fragrances and preservatives were the most prevalent EDC categories. Cleaning products, detergents, and air fresheners were identified as hotspots for specific chemical combinations, including isothiazolinones, glycol ethers, and parabens [27].
• Research Application: This methodology provides a data-driven framework for prioritizing which chemical mixtures require empirical testing in a laboratory setting. Researchers sourcing raw materials can use such data to anticipate likely contaminant profiles.

For scientists deconstructing the health impacts of EDCs, the supply chain is a critical, active component of the experimental system. A disruption does not merely cause delay—it risks altering the fundamental composition of the material under study. By integrating robust logistical strategies, such as supplier diversification and digital visibility, with rigorous analytical verification protocols, researchers can establish a foundation of material integrity. This dual focus on resilience and purity is paramount for generating reliable, reproducible data that can effectively inform public health policies and consumer safety standards in an increasingly complex chemical environment.

The pervasive presence of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) in personal care and household products represents a significant challenge for modern toxicology and product safety research. EDCs are natural or human-made chemicals that may mimic, block, or interfere with the body's hormones, which are part of the endocrine system [2]. These chemicals are linked with many health problems in both wildlife and people, with recent research highlighting consistent associations between EDC exposure and multiple adverse reproductive endpoints in both males and females [19]. For researchers and drug development professionals, optimizing safety substantiation protocols is paramount in identifying and mitigating these risks during product development.

The endocrine system is particularly vulnerable to low-dose exposures, especially during critical developmental windows, necessitating highly sensitive testing methodologies [2] [91]. With adults in the United States using, on average, 12 different cosmetic products daily—each potentially containing EDCs—the cumulative exposure burden becomes a significant research concern [92]. Recent regulatory changes, including the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA), have transformed cosmetics regulation from a model defined by voluntary compliance into one subject to more rigorous, enforceable FDA oversight [92]. This evolving landscape demands increasingly sophisticated approaches to safety substantiation that can detect subtle yet biologically significant endocrine disruptions.

Regulatory Framework for Safety Substantiation

Evolving Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory framework governing safety substantiation has undergone significant transformation, particularly with the passage of the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA) in December 2022. This legislation represents the first major update to U.S. cosmetics law in over 80 years and establishes substantial new obligations for manufacturers, packers, and distributors of cosmetics sold in the United States [92]. Unlike the previous regime, which mandated neither pre-market safety testing nor registration of cosmetic production facilities, MoCRA requires both domestic and foreign manufacturers to register with FDA and list detailed product information [92].

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, cosmetic products and ingredients generally do not require FDA premarket approval, with the exception of color additives [93]. However, companies and individuals who manufacture or market cosmetics have a legal responsibility to ensure the safety of their products, though neither the law nor FDA regulations require specific tests to demonstrate the safety of individual products or ingredients [93]. The law also does not require cosmetic companies to share their safety information with FDA, creating a self-regulatory environment that places the burden of proof on manufacturers.

Key Regulatory Definitions and Obligations

Table 1: Key Regulatory Definitions Relevant to Safety Substantiation

Term	Regulatory Definition	Implications for Safety Testing
Cosmetic	"Articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body...for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance" [93]	Products making only aesthetic claims fall under cosmetic regulation
Drug	"Articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease" and "articles intended to affect the structure or any function of the body" [93]	Products making therapeutic claims require more rigorous pre-market approval
Adulterated Cosmetic	Contains "any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to users" under customary conditions of use [93]	Establishes safety threshold for compliance actions
Misbranded Cosmetic	Labeling is "false or misleading in any particular" or fails to reveal material facts [94]	Requires transparent disclosure of potential risks
Responsible Person	Entity required to report serious adverse events to FDA under MoCRA [92]	Centralizes accountability for post-market surveillance

A critical regulatory challenge lies in the categorical distinction between cosmetics and drugs, particularly for products containing EDCs with potential physiological effects. The FD&C Act provides that the categories of "drug" and "cosmetic" are not mutually exclusive, meaning a product can be both simultaneously if it exerts both physical and physiological effects [94]. This classification significantly impacts the stringency of required safety substantiation, with drugs subject to far more rigorous pre-market approval processes.

Adverse Event Reporting: Methodologies and Documentation

The process of eliciting adverse event (AE) data from clinical trial participants significantly influences the detection and characterization of potential safety signals. Research indicates that the method of questioning fundamentally impacts the nature and extent of AEs reported, creating substantial methodological challenges for safety substantiation [95]. A systematic review of 33 studies comparing AE elicitation methods found that more specific questioning of participants led to more AEs detected compared to a more general enquiry [95].

The evidence suggests that open questions (e.g., "How have you been feeling?") tend to identify more severe, bothersome, or clinically relevant AEs, while checklist-type questions detect a broader range of symptoms, including less severe but potentially important events [95]. This has crucial implications for EDC research, where endocrine-related effects may manifest as subtle changes in normally functioning systems rather than overt pathological conditions. The narrative review showed that the risk ratios for reporting at least one AE with open questions compared to checklists ranged from 0.12 to 0.64, indicating substantially lower detection rates with open enquiries [95].

Table 2: Comparison of Adverse Event Elicitation Methods in Clinical Research

Elicitation Method	Advantages	Limitations	Best Applications in EDC Research
General Open Enquiry	Identifies clinically significant AEs; avoids suggestion bias; captures unanticipated events	Under-detects subtle or non-bothersome symptoms; highly variable between interviewers	Initial screening for significant physiological effects
Structured Checklists	Comprehensive detection; standardized across participants; improved data consistency	May over-report trivial events; can introduce suggestion bias; potentially burdensome	Systematic detection of known EDC-related symptom patterns
Participant Interviews	Depth of information; contextual understanding; exploration of mechanism	Time-consuming; difficult to standardize; requires skilled interviewers	Follow-up on significant AEs to establish biological plausibility
Diaries/Memory Aids	Reduces recall bias; captures timing relationships; provides longitudinal data	Compliance issues; potentially incomplete documentation	Tracking cyclical endocrine-related symptoms over time

Implementing Comprehensive Adverse Event Reporting Systems

For post-market surveillance, the FDA's MedWatch program serves as a crucial mechanism for collecting safety data on regulated products, including cosmetics, drugs, and medical devices [96]. The Medical Device Reporting (MDR) regulation, which requires mandatory reporting by manufacturers, importers, and device user facilities for certain device-related adverse events, provides a model framework for systematic safety monitoring [97]. For cosmetics, MoCRA now requires manufacturers to designate a "responsible person" to report serious health-related events associated with the product promptly to FDA [92].

Advanced pharmacovigilance methodologies have evolved to enhance signal detection from adverse event databases. As demonstrated in a comprehensive safety analysis of eptinezumab, modern pharmacovigilance utilizes multiple disproportionality analysis methods to detect potential adverse reaction signals, including reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS), and Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN) [98]. This multi-modal approach improves the robustness of safety signals identified in spontaneous reporting systems.

Figure 1: Adverse Event Documentation and Reporting Workflow

Pre-market Safety Testing: Advanced Methodologies for EDC Detection

Endocrine-Focused Toxicological Assessment

Pre-market safety testing for products potentially containing EDCs requires specialized methodologies capable of detecting disruption to endocrine pathways. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has pioneered research on the health effects of endocrine disruptors, developing frameworks to help scientists evaluate potential endocrine disruptors [2]. The key characteristics of EDCs provide a structured approach for identifying and testing potential endocrine activity, including their ability to interact with hormonal receptors, alter hormone synthesis or metabolism, and modify hormone concentrations in tissues or circulation [2].

The testing paradigm for EDCs should incorporate both tiered testing approaches and mechanistic understanding of endocrine disruption. According to NIEHS, safety can be substantiated through "(a) reliance on already available toxicological test data on individual ingredients and on product formulations that are similar in composition to the particular cosmetic, and (b) performance of any additional toxicological and other tests that are appropriate in light of such existing data and information" [93]. This flexible approach allows researchers to tailor testing strategies based on existing knowledge and specific concerns about ingredient chemistry.

In Vitro and In Vivo Testing Strategies

Advanced testing for EDCs incorporates both in vitro and in vivo methodologies designed to detect specific endocrine activities. The NIEHS supports cutting-edge research projects on endocrine disrupting chemicals, including developing new models and tools to better understand how endocrine disrupters work, conducting animal and human health research to define linkages between exposure to endocrine disrupters and health effects, and identifying and developing new intervention and prevention strategies [2].

The multi-agency Tox21 program represents a innovative approach to high-throughput screening for endocrine activity, developing and applying new models and tools using robotics to predict endocrine disrupting activity for environmental substances [2]. This program leverages automated screening technologies to efficiently evaluate large numbers of chemicals for potential endocrine activity, providing valuable data for prioritizing more extensive testing.

Figure 2: Comprehensive EDC Safety Testing Pipeline

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Methodologies

Key Research Reagent Solutions for EDC Research

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms for EDC Safety Assessment

Research Tool Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Utility in EDC Testing
Receptor Binding Assays	ERα, ERβ, AR, TR, PR receptor preparations	Quantifying ligand-receptor interactions	Identifies direct hormone mimicking or blocking activity
Reporter Gene Systems	Luciferase-based ER, AR transcriptional activation assays	Measuring receptor-mediated gene expression	Detects functional cellular responses to EDC exposure
Cell-Based Screening Platforms	MCF-7, T47D, MDA-MB-231 cell lines	Assessing proliferative/anti-proliferative effects	Measures estrogenic activity through cell growth responses
High-Content Screening Systems	Automated imaging and analysis platforms	Multiparameter cytotoxicity and phenotypic assessment	Evaluates multiple endocrine endpoints simultaneously
Analytical Chemistry Standards	Isotope-labeled BPA, phthalates, PFAS	Quantifying exposure levels in biological matrices	Precisely measures internal dose for dose-response assessment
Molecular Biology Reagents	qPCR arrays for endocrine-responsive genes	Profiling gene expression changes	Identifies pathway-specific responses to EDC exposure
Animal Models	Rodent uterotrophic, Hershberger assays	In vivo assessment of endocrine activity	Provides integrated physiological response data

Emerging Technologies in EDC Safety Assessment

The field of EDC safety assessment is rapidly evolving with advancements in computational toxicology and novel testing platforms. The FDA's collaboration with the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to develop and validate integrated, high throughput testing strategies to detect substances that could disrupt endocrine functions by interacting with the hormones estrogen and androgen represents a significant innovation [2]. These approaches allow for more efficient screening of potential EDCs before more resource-intensive in vivo studies.

Another promising area is the development of adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) for endocrine disruption, which provide structured frameworks linking molecular initiating events to adverse outcomes at the organism level. The NIEHS was involved in developing a consensus statement in 2019 on the key characteristics of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, which provides a framework to help scientists evaluate potential endocrine disruptors [2]. These AOPs facilitate more targeted testing strategies focused on key events in the pathway from exposure to adverse outcome.

Integrated Testing Strategies and Data Interpretation

Weight-of-Evidence Approaches

Given the complexity of endocrine systems and the diverse mechanisms through which EDCs can act, safety substantiation requires a weight-of-evidence approach that integrates data from multiple sources and testing methodologies. This involves considering the totality of available evidence, including in silico predictions, in vitro assays, in vivo data, and human evidence when available [19]. The biological plausibility of observed effects should be evaluated within the context of known endocrine signaling pathways and feedback mechanisms.

The inherent limitations of individual test systems necessitate this comprehensive approach. As noted in research on EDCs and reproductive outcomes, "the majority of human studies remain observational in nature, and often face challenges related to confounding, reverse causation, and exposure misclassification" [19]. By integrating data from controlled laboratory systems with human-relevant observation, researchers can build a more complete picture of potential risks.

Statistical Considerations for EDC Safety Assessment

Statistical analysis of EDC safety data requires special consideration of non-monotonic dose responses, which are commonly observed in endocrine systems due to feedback mechanisms and receptor dynamics [2]. Traditional toxicological assumptions about dose-response relationships may not apply to EDCs, where low-dose effects may differ qualitatively from high-dose effects. The NIEHS notes that "even low doses of endocrine-disrupting chemicals may be unsafe" because the body's normal endocrine functioning involves very small changes in hormone levels, and even these small changes can cause significant developmental and biological effects [2].

Additionally, the statistical power required to detect potentially subtle effects of EDCs on complex endocrine endpoints must be carefully considered in study design. Meta-analytical approaches, such as those employed in recent systematic reviews of EDCs and reproductive outcomes, can enhance signal detection by combining data across multiple studies [19]. These approaches are particularly valuable for identifying consistent patterns of effect across different study populations and methodologies.

The optimization of safety substantiation for products potentially containing EDCs requires ongoing methodological refinement and integration of emerging scientific insights. As regulatory standards evolve under frameworks like MoCRA, and scientific understanding of endocrine disruption mechanisms advances, safety testing paradigms must similarly progress [92]. The continued development of novel testing platforms, computational approaches, and structured frameworks for interpreting complex data will enhance our ability to identify potential EDCs before they enter consumer products.

For researchers and drug development professionals, maintaining awareness of both the latest scientific developments and evolving regulatory expectations is essential. The integrated approach to safety substantiation—combining robust pre-market testing with comprehensive post-market surveillance—represents the current standard for ensuring product safety in the context of potential endocrine disruption. As research continues to elucidate the subtle yet significant health impacts of EDC exposure, the methodologies for safety substantiation will undoubtedly continue to advance, providing increasingly sophisticated tools for protecting public health.

The study of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) in personal care and household products represents a critical frontier in public health research. EDCs are natural or human-made chemicals that can mimic, block, or interfere with the body's hormones, leading to numerous health problems including reproductive abnormalities, increased cancer risk, and developmental disorders [2]. Researchers face significant analytical challenges as EDCs are characterized by their ubiquitous presence at trace-level concentrations and their wide diversity, with nearly 85,000 human-made chemicals in the world and 1,000 or more potentially acting as endocrine disruptors [2] [22]. These chemicals enter research environments through various pathways including food and beverages consumed, pesticides applied, and cosmetics used, creating complex matrices that necessitate sophisticated analytical approaches [2].

The field of green chemistry has emerged as an essential framework for addressing these challenges while aligning with principles of environmental responsibility. Green chemistry solutions focus on reducing ecological and health risks posed by traditional analytical methods, which often rely heavily on toxic organic solvents and energy-intensive procedures [99]. This technical guide explores the development and application of bio-based sorbents and sustainable solvents specifically for the analysis of EDCs in personal care and household products, providing researchers with practical methodologies that maintain analytical precision while minimizing environmental impact.

Green Analytical Chemistry Framework for EDC Research

The analysis of EDCs requires sophisticated approaches due to their presence in complex matrices at trace concentrations. Conventional analytical methods, while effective, often generate substantial waste and utilize hazardous chemicals [99]. Green analytical chemistry principles address these concerns through three core strategies: reducing solvent consumption, minimizing waste generation, and lowering energy demands throughout the analytical workflow [99].

For EDC research specifically, the analytical challenge is compounded by the need to detect compounds at concentrations as low as 0.1 ng·L−1, necessitating highly sensitive instrumentation and efficient sample preparation techniques [40]. The application of green principles to this field enables researchers to maintain the required sensitivity and selectivity while adopting more sustainable practices. This framework provides both environmental benefits and practical advantages through reduced reagent costs, decreased exposure to hazardous materials, and streamlined analytical procedures.

Advanced Instrumentation for Trace EDC Analysis

Mass spectrometry forms the cornerstone of modern EDC analysis due to its exceptional sensitivity and selectivity. Liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) has become the method of choice for the determination of trace organic analytes in complex environmental and biological samples [40]. The most significant advances in instrumentation for EDC analysis include:

• Triple Quadrupole (QqQ) MS: Operated in selected reaction monitoring (SRM) mode, this technology provides superior selectivity and unequivocal identification of target analytes in complex matrices. It uses the most intensive fragment ion from the precursor ion for quantification, with a less sensitive secondary transition used as confirmation [40].

• Hybrid Quadrupole-Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry (Qq-TOF-MS): This advanced technology allows acquisition of full-scan product-ion spectra, providing accurate mass of the product ion. This enables structural elucidation of unknown compounds and identification of target compounds with greater certainty [40].

• High-Efficiency Separation Techniques: To reduce analytical run times without compromising resolution, three main approaches have emerged: using monolith columns that accept high flow rates without generating high back-pressures, conducting liquid chromatography at high temperatures, and implementing ultra-high pressure liquid chromatography with columns packed with sub-2-micron particles [40].

Table 1: Advanced Instrumentation Techniques for EDC Analysis

Technique	Key Features	Applications in EDC Research	Green Benefits
LC-MS/MS with QqQ	Selected reaction monitoring mode; wide linear range (>3 orders of magnitude)	Quantification of target EDCs in complex matrices	Reduced re-analysis needs through precise quantification
Qq-TOF-MS	Accurate mass measurement; full-scan product-ion spectra	Identification of unknown EDCs; non-target screening	Comprehensive analysis in single run reduces solvent consumption
Monolithic Column HPLC	High flow rates (up to 10 mL/min) with low back-pressure	Rapid separation of EDC mixtures	Shorter analysis times reduce energy consumption
Ultra-High Pressure HPLC	Sub-2-micron particles; improved resolution	Complex EDC separations where high resolution is critical	Reduced solvent consumption through faster separations

Sustainable Solvent Systems for EDC Analysis

Bio-Based Solvent Alternatives

Bio-based solvents represent a fundamental shift from petrochemical-based solvents toward sustainable alternatives derived from renewable biomass. These solvents are typically derived from agricultural crops rich in carbohydrates, such as corn, wheat, and beets. The carbohydrates are purified and fermented to produce bioethanol and other alcohols, which are then combined with esters of lactic acids and other natural acids [100].

The advantages of bio-based solvents for EDC analysis are substantial. They are generally less toxic, less flammable, and biodegradable compared to their conventional counterparts. Additionally, they contribute less to carbon emissions and demonstrate excellent compatibility with other formulation ingredients [100]. Their stability at higher temperatures makes them less volatile and flammable, enhancing laboratory safety. From a practical perspective, smaller quantities are often required to obtain the same viscosity as petroleum-based solvents, further reducing environmental impact [100].

Green Chromatography Techniques

Recent advances in green chromatography techniques have enabled significant progress in natural product analysis, including the study of EDCs in consumer products. These techniques align with sustainability principles while maintaining high analytical performance [99]. Key methodologies include:

• Supercritical Fluid Chromatography (SFC): This technique utilizes carbon dioxide as a non-toxic and reusable mobile phase, dramatically minimizing the use of harmful solvents. The environmental benefits are substantial, as CO2 can be captured from industrial waste streams and is inherently non-flammable and non-toxic [99].

• Micellar Liquid Chromatography (MLC): MLC employs micellar solutions as mobile phases, significantly reducing the consumption of organic solvents. This approach offers the dual benefits of improved sustainability and enhanced safety through reduced exposure to hazardous solvents [99].

• High-Performance Thin Layer Chromatography (HPTLC): Modern HPTLC techniques have been optimized to minimize solvent use while providing efficient separations. The miniaturized nature of HPTLC contributes to reduced solvent consumption throughout the analytical process [99].

Table 2: Sustainable Solvent Systems for Chromatographic Analysis of EDCs

Solvent System	Composition/Principle	Analytical Performance	Environmental & Safety Benefits
Bio-Based Solvents	Derived from agricultural crops; fermentation products	Compatible with formulation ingredients; stable at higher temperatures	Less toxic, biodegradable, reduced carbon emissions [100]
Supercritical Fluid Chromatography	CO2-based mobile phase	Excellent for non-polar to moderately polar EDCs; high efficiency	Non-toxic, reusable mobile phase; minimal waste [99]
Micellar Liquid Chromatography	Aqueous micellar solutions	Suitable for various EDC classes; good separation efficiency	Dramatically reduces organic solvent use [99]
Natural Deep Eutectic Solvents (NADES)	Biodegradable mixtures from natural compounds	Emerging for extraction and sample preparation	Low toxicity, biodegradable [99]

Experimental Protocol: SFC Method for EDC Analysis

Principle: This method utilizes supercritical carbon dioxide as the primary mobile phase for the separation of endocrine-disrupting compounds from personal care product extracts, with modified polarity achieved through green cosolvents.

Materials and Equipment:

• Supercritical fluid chromatograph with back-pressure regulator
• Analytical SFC column (e.g., Viridis BEH 2-EP, 150 mm × 4.6 mm, 5 μm)
• Carbon dioxide source (grade 5.0 or higher)
• Bio-based cosolvents (e.g., bio-ethanol, ethyl lactate)
• Standard reference EDCs (BPA, phthalates, parabens, PFAS)

Procedure:

• Mobile Phase Preparation: Utilize carbon dioxide as the primary mobile phase. Add 5-20% bio-based cosolvent (e.g., bio-ethanol) to modify polarity for specific EDC classes.
• Column Conditioning: Equilibrate the SFC column with initial mobile phase composition (95% CO2, 5% cosolvent) at 2 mL/min for 30 minutes.
• Gradient Elution Program:
  • 0-5 min: Maintain 5% cosolvent
  • 5-15 min: Linear gradient from 5% to 25% cosolvent
  • 15-20 min: Maintain 25% cosolvent
  • 20-21 min: Return to 5% cosolvent
  • 21-25 min: Re-equilibration at 5% cosolvent
• Detection: Couple with mass spectrometry detection using electrospray ionization in negative mode for acidic EDCs (e.g., PFAS) or positive mode for other EDCs.
• Quantification: Use external calibration with standards prepared in green solvents matching the mobile phase composition.

Method Greenness Assessment: This SFC method reduces organic solvent consumption by 80-90% compared to conventional reversed-phase LC methods while maintaining comparable separation efficiency for most EDC classes.

Bio-Based Sorbents for Sample Preparation

Sustainable Sorptive Materials

The development of sustainable materials for sorptive extraction techniques has grown significantly in recent years, aligning with the principles of Green Analytical Chemistry. These materials offer efficient, low-cost, and eco-friendly extraction options for sample preparation in EDC analysis [101]. Key categories include:

• Natural Material-Based Sorbents: Materials such as cellulose-based substrates, cork, and wood are increasingly used as efficient sorbents. These natural materials provide a renewable and often biodegradable alternative to synthetic polymers, with the potential for tailored properties to achieve required sensitivity and selectivity for EDC extraction [101].

• Green Synthesis Approaches: Conventional sorbent materials, including molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs), carbon-based materials, and metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), can be made more sustainable through green synthesis methods. These approaches utilize monomers derived from natural sources, environmentally friendly solvents such as water or deep eutectic solvents, and energy-efficient synthetic techniques [101].

The incorporation of these sustainable materials into extraction techniques, especially microextraction approaches, contributes to the development of more environmentally responsible analytical methods for EDC monitoring in personal care and household products [101].

Microextraction Techniques

Microextraction techniques represent a significant advancement in green sample preparation by dramatically reducing both solvent and sample volume requirements. These methods include:

• Solid Phase Microextraction (SPME): This solvent-free technique utilizes a fused silica fiber coated with a stationary phase for extracting analytes from sample matrices. The development of sustainable coating materials has further enhanced the green credentials of SPME for EDC analysis [99].

• Liquid Phase Microextraction (LPME): LPME techniques use minimal volumes of extraction solvents, often in the microliter range, significantly reducing solvent consumption compared to traditional liquid-liquid extraction [99].

The combination of online extraction and real-time detection systems increases analytical throughput while minimizing environmental impact, making these approaches particularly valuable for high-volume screening of EDCs in consumer products [99].

Experimental Protocol: SPME Method for EDC Extraction from Personal Care Products

Principle: This method utilizes solid-phase microextraction with bio-based sorbent coatings for the extraction of endocrine-disrupting chemicals from complex personal care product matrices, followed by GC-MS or LC-MS analysis.

Materials and Equipment:

• SPME holder assembly
• SPME fibers with sustainable coatings (e.g., cellulose-derived, cork-based)
• Sample vials (10 mL) with PTFE-silicone septa
• Temperature-controlled agitation system
• Standard solution of target EDCs (phthalates, parabens, synthetic musks, BPA)

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Weigh 1.0 g of personal care product (lotion, cream, or liquid) into a 10 mL vial. Add 5 mL of saturated NaCl solution and dilute to 10 mL with purified water.
• Extraction Conditions:
  • Extraction temperature: 60°C
  • Extraction time: 40 minutes with continuous agitation at 500 rpm
  • Headspace or direct immersion mode based on EDC volatility
• Desorption Conditions:
  • For GC-MS: Thermal desorption at 250°C for 5 minutes in injection port
  • For LC-MS: Solvent desorption in 200 μL of green solvent (e.g., bio-ethanol) with 10-minute immersion
• Analysis: Utilize GC-MS with programmed temperature vaporization or LC-MS with appropriate column chemistry.

Method Greenness Assessment: This SPME method eliminates the use of bulk organic solvents for extraction, reduces sample volume requirements, and utilizes renewable sorbent materials, representing a significant improvement over conventional liquid-liquid extraction approaches.

Table 3: Bio-Based Sorbents for EDC Extraction in Analytical Methods

Sorbent Material	Source/Composition	Target EDCs	Efficiency & Advantages
Cellulose-Based Materials	Plant biomass; modified cellulose	Phenolic EDCs (BPA, alkylphenols); parabens	High surface area; modifiable functional groups [101]
Cork Derivatives	Renewable bark from cork oak	Non-polar EDCs (phthalates, musks)	Natural porous structure; hydrophobic properties [101]
Molecularly Imprinted Polymers (Green Synthesis)	Natural monomers; green solvents	Specific EDC classes (template-dependent)	High selectivity; reduced environmental impact in synthesis [101]
Chitosan-Based Sorbents	Shellfish industry waste	Various EDCs depending on functionalization	Biodegradable; abundant renewable source [101]

Analytical Workflows and Data Visualization

Integrated Analytical Workflow for EDC Analysis

The comprehensive analysis of EDCs in personal care and household products requires an integrated approach that incorporates green chemistry principles at each stage. The following diagram illustrates the complete analytical workflow from sample preparation to data visualization:

Diagram 1: Integrated Green Analytical Workflow for EDC Analysis

Quantitative Data Analysis and Visualization

Effective data analysis and visualization are essential components of EDC research. Quantitative data analysis methods enable researchers to discover trends, patterns, and relationships within datasets, supporting hypothesis testing and informed decision-making [102]. For EDC analysis, key approaches include:

• Descriptive Statistics: These methods summarize and describe dataset characteristics using measures such as mean, median, mode, and range to understand central tendency, spread, and shape of the data distribution [102].

• Inferential Statistics: These techniques use sample data to make generalizations, predictions, or decisions about larger populations. Key methods include hypothesis testing, t-tests, ANOVA, regression analysis, and correlation analysis [102].

When visualizing quantitative data from EDC analysis, careful color selection enhances interpretability while maintaining accessibility. Effective color palettes for data visualization fall into three main categories [103]:

• Qualitative Palettes: Used when the variable is categorical in nature (e.g., different EDC classes, product types). Colors assigned to each group need to be distinct, with a recommended maximum of ten or fewer colors [103].

• Sequential Palettes: Appropriate when the assigned variable is numeric or has inherently ordered values. Colors are assigned to data values in a continuum, typically based on lightness, with lower values associated with lighter colors and higher values with darker colors [103].

• Diverging Palettes: Used when numeric variables have a meaningful central value (e.g., regulatory limits). These palettes combine two sequential palettes with a shared endpoint at the central value [103].

Table 4: Quantitative Data Analysis Methods for EDC Research Data

Analysis Method	Application in EDC Research	Key Statistical Measures	Recommended Visualization
Descriptive Statistics	Characterizing EDC concentration ranges; summarizing detection frequencies	Mean, median, mode, standard deviation, range	Bar charts, histograms, box plots [102] [104]
Cross-Tabulation	Analyzing relationships between categorical variables (e.g., product type vs. EDC presence)	Frequency counts, percentages	Stacked bar charts, clustered bar charts [102]
Regression Analysis	Predicting EDC concentrations based on product characteristics; exposure modeling	Regression coefficients, R-squared values	Scatter plots with trend lines [102]
Gap Analysis	Comparing measured EDC levels against safety thresholds or regulatory limits	Variance from benchmark	Progress charts, radar charts [102]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 5: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Green EDC Analysis

Reagent/Material	Function in EDC Research	Green Alternatives	Application Notes
Extraction Solvents	Sample preparation; analyte extraction	Bio-based solvents (bio-ethanol, ethyl lactate); NADES	Less toxic, biodegradable, from renewable resources [100] [99]
Chromatography Mobile Phases	Compound separation	Supercritical CO2; micellar solutions; bio-based modifier	Significantly reduces hazardous solvent use [99]
Sorbent Materials	Sample clean-up; microextraction	Cellulose-based materials; cork; green-synthesized MIPs	Renewable sources; biodegradable options [101]
Derivatization Reagents	Enhancing detection sensitivity	Green solvents as reaction media	Reduces waste generation [99]
Calibration Standards	Quantification of target EDCs	Prepared in bio-based solvents	Maintains consistency with green principles [100]

The integration of green chemistry solutions into EDC research represents both an ethical imperative and a practical advancement for analytical science. The development of bio-based sorbents and sustainable solvents offers a viable pathway to maintaining analytical precision while reducing environmental impact. These approaches align with the broader goals of sustainability in scientific practice, addressing concerns about resource consumption, waste generation, and workplace safety.

Future developments in this field will likely focus on further miniaturization of analytical systems, development of novel bio-based materials with enhanced selectivity for specific EDC classes, and integration of automated online systems that reduce both solvent consumption and analysis time. Additionally, the application of green chemistry metrics to standard analytical methods will provide researchers with standardized tools to assess and compare the environmental performance of different analytical approaches.

As regulatory scrutiny of EDCs in personal care and household products intensifies, the analytical methods described in this technical guide provide a foundation for responsible, sustainable research practices. By adopting these green chemistry solutions, researchers can contribute to both scientific understanding and environmental protection, ensuring that the pursuit of knowledge about chemical exposures does not inadvertently contribute to the very problems under investigation.

Economic Impact, Policy Efficacy, and Global Regulatory Frameworks

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) represent a significant and costly public health challenge, with substantial economic burdens arising from associated healthcare costs and productivity losses. This whitepaper synthesizes current evidence quantifying these economic impacts, examines the biological mechanisms through which EDCs contribute to disease, and outlines methodological approaches for researchers investigating this critical issue. The findings reveal that EDC exposures contribute to hundreds of billions of dollars in annual economic costs globally, with impacts spanning neurobehavioral deficits, reproductive disorders, obesity, diabetes, and respiratory conditions. Understanding these economic burdens is essential for informing regulatory policies, directing research priorities, and developing effective public health interventions.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals are exogenous substances that interfere with the normal function of the endocrine system by mimicking, blocking, or altering the synthesis, transport, metabolism, or elimination of natural hormones [19]. These chemicals are found ubiquitously in personal care products, household goods, food packaging, medical equipment, and environmental media [105] [7]. The reproductive system is particularly vulnerable to EDC exposure, with growing evidence linking these chemicals to impaired semen quality, decreased ovarian reserve, infertility, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and altered hormone levels [19].

The economic implications of EDC exposure extend beyond direct healthcare costs to include significant productivity losses and broader societal impacts. Unlike other toxicant classes such as carcinogens, EDCs have yet to be comprehensively codified into regulations as a distinct hazard category, creating regulatory gaps that permit ongoing exposure [105]. This whitepaper examines the quantitative evidence of economic burdens attributable to EDC exposure, with particular attention to implications for researchers and drug development professionals working in the context of personal care and household products.

Quantitative Economic Burden of EDC Exposure

Comprehensive Cost Estimates

Recent economic evaluations have quantified the substantial burden of disease and disability attributable to EDC exposures. These analyses demonstrate that EDCs contribute to neurobehavioral deficits, male reproductive disorders, obesity, diabetes, and female reproductive disorders, with staggering associated costs.

Table 1: Annual Economic Costs of EDC-Attributable Disease

Health Outcome Category	Regional Scope	Annual Cost	Primary Contributing EDCs
Neurobehavioral deficits & diseases	European Union	€163 billion	Phthalates, PBDEs, pesticides [105]
Male reproductive disorders	European Union	Included in above total	Phthalates, pesticides [105]
Obesity & diabetes	European Union	Included in above total	BPA, phthalates [105]
Female reproductive disorders	European Union	Included in above total	Phthalates, BPA, pesticides [105]
Multiple health outcomes	United States	$340 billion	Diverse EDC classes [105]

These economic burdens are considered significant underestimates, as they account for only a subset of known EDCs and the health outcomes likely to be affected by exposure [105]. Methodological challenges in quantification include the failure of standard disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) approaches to capture subtle neurodevelopmental impacts, with economic evaluations relying solely on DALY estimates producing a 200-fold divergence from estimates that incorporate intellectual quotient (IQ) changes within the normal range [105].

Methodological Considerations in Cost Quantification

Accurately quantifying the economic burden of EDCs requires sophisticated methodological approaches that address several unique challenges:

• Low-Dose and Non-Monotonic Effects: EDCs can produce effects at extremely low levels of exposure, and many exhibit non-monotonic dose-response curves, meaning effects may not be proportional to dose [106]. Traditional toxicological models that rely on high-dose testing may fail to capture these relationships.

• Critical Exposure Windows: The consequences of EDC exposure depend heavily on developmental timing, with prenatal, infant, and adolescent periods representing particularly vulnerable windows [106]. Economic models must account for these latent effects that may manifest years or decades after exposure.

• Mixture Effects: Humans are exposed to multiple EDCs simultaneously, yet most toxicity studies examine chemicals in isolation [7]. The "cocktail effect" of combined exposures presents significant challenges for attribution and quantification.

• Transgenerational Impacts: Some EDCs can produce epigenetic changes that affect multiple generations through heritable mechanisms [106]. Standard economic models struggle to incorporate these intergenerational costs.

Biological Mechanisms and Health Endpoints

Pathways to Economic Impact

EDCs contribute to economic burden through multiple biological pathways that lead to clinically significant disease endpoints. Understanding these mechanisms is essential for researchers investigating exposure-disease relationships.

Table 2: Key Mechanistic Pathways Linking EDCs to Health Economic Outcomes

Mechanistic Pathway	Health & Economic Consequences	Key Supporting Evidence
Altered brain reward pathways	Increased preference for sugary/fatty foods; weight gain; obesity-related costs	Animal studies show EDC exposure alters gene expression in brain regions controlling food intake and reward [4]
Impaired steroidogenesis	Reduced steroid hormone production; reproductive dysfunction; infertility costs	In vitro human ovarian cortex exposure to ketoconazole significantly reduced pregnenolone and progesterone levels [107]
Oxidative stress & inflammation	Respiratory impairment; increased PRISm/pre-COPD prevalence	EDC mixtures associated with preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) mediated through systemic inflammation [47]
Epigenetic modifications	Transgenerational effects on fertility and disease susceptibility	Multi-generational studies demonstrate epigenetic transgenerational actions of EDCs on mate fertility [7]

Diagram: Economic Impact Pathways of EDC Exposure

Research Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

Approaches for Economic Analysis

Researchers have employed several methodological approaches to quantify the economic burden of EDCs:

• Disease Burden Costing: This approach leverages rigorous methodology first described by the US National Academy of Sciences to document the potential economic benefits of policy actions, such as the phase-out of leaded gasoline, which yielded annual benefits of $110-319 billion in the USA [105].

• Biomonitoring and Epidemiological Studies: Large-scale studies like the NHANES datasets enable researchers to correlate biomonitoring data with health outcomes and economic costs. Recent analyses of NHANES 2007-2012 data revealed significant associations between EDCs and preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm), a precursor to COPD [47].

• Mixture Effect Modeling: Advanced statistical approaches, including weighted quantile sum (WQS) regression, quantile g-computation (Qgcomp), and Bayesian kernel machine regression (BKMR), allow researchers to assess the combined effects of multiple EDCs on health outcomes [47].

Experimental Models for EDC Research

In Vitro Ovarian Tissue Model

A sophisticated experimental protocol for assessing EDC effects on reproductive tissues:

Objective: To identify mechanisms of endocrine disruption in human ovarian tissue and identify novel biomarkers [107].

Materials and Methods:

• Tissue Source: Human ovarian cortical tissue obtained from Caesarean section patients
• EDC Exposure: Tissues exposed to 10⁻⁹ M - 10⁻⁵ M ketoconazole (KTZ) and 10⁻¹⁰ M - 10⁻⁶ M diethylstilbestrol (DES) in vitro for 6 days
• Assessment Methods:
  • Histological analysis of follicle survival and growth
  • Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry for steroid quantification
  • RNA-sequencing of exposed ovarian cell lines (COV434, KGN) and primary ovarian cells
  • Quantitative PCR and in situ RNA hybridization for validation of candidate genes
  • Immunofluorescence for protein expression validation

Key Findings: Stearoyl-CoA desaturase (SCD) was identified as a potential novel human-relevant biomarker of EDC exposure and effects on ovaries [107].

Animal Behavioral Studies

Objective: To determine if early-life exposure to EDCs affects eating behaviors and food preferences [4].

Experimental Design:

• Subjects: 15 male and 15 female rats exposed to common EDC mixture during gestation or infancy
• Behavioral Tests: Preferences for high-fat foods and sucrose solution assessed throughout lifespan
• Biological Analysis: Brain region sequencing to identify physical changes in areas controlling food intake and reward response
• Hormonal Measurement: Testosterone and estradiol levels assessed in exposed vs. control animals

Key Findings: Early-life EDC exposure caused temporary sucrose preference in males, strong high-fat food preference and weight gain in females, and altered gene expression in brain reward pathways [4].

Diagram: In Vitro Ovarian Tissue Experimental Workflow

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Methods

Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for EDC Investigation

Reagent/Method	Application in EDC Research	Specific Examples
Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS)	Steroid hormone quantification	Measurement of pregnenolone and progesterone levels in human ovarian tissue [107]
RNA-sequencing	Transcriptomic analysis of EDC effects	Identification of 445 DEGs in DES-exposed and 233 DEGs in KTZ-exposed ovarian cells [107]
Weighted quantile sum (WQS) regression	Mixture effect analysis	Assessment of combined effects of multiple EDCs on PRISm prevalence [47]
Bayesian kernel machine regression (BKMR)	Complex mixture modeling	Evaluation of overall mixture effects of EDCs on respiratory outcomes [47]
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)	Inflammatory biomarker measurement	Quantification of systemic inflammation markers mediating EDC effects [47]
Primary human tissue cultures	Human-relevant toxicity testing	Human ovarian cortical tissue culture for direct assessment of EDC effects [107]

Regulatory Context and Policy Implications

The regulatory landscape for EDCs varies significantly across jurisdictions, with important implications for both public health and economic outcomes. The European Union has adopted a largely hazard-based approach, banning EDCs from pesticides through the 2009 Plant Protection Products Regulation and 2012 Biocidal Products Regulation [105]. In contrast, the United States employs a strictly risk-based approach with screening programs focused primarily on estrogenic EDCs [105].

This regulatory disparity has significant economic ramifications. More protective regulatory approaches could substantially reduce disease burden and associated costs. Economic evaluations have proven extremely useful for translating research findings into policy by documenting potential economic benefits of regulatory actions [105]. The Endocrine Society has called for improved testing methodologies that account for low-dose effects, non-monotonic dose responses, critical exposure windows, and mixture effects - all factors not adequately addressed in current OECD screening guidelines [106].

Research Gaps and Future Directions

Despite growing evidence of the economic burden posed by EDCs, significant research gaps remain:

• Cumulative Exposure Assessment: Longitudinal studies are needed to assess the cumulative effects of chronic, low-dose EDC exposure on human health and economic outcomes [19].

• Mixture Effect Quantification: Standardized methods for evaluating the combined effects of multiple EDCs ("cocktail effects") are urgently needed for accurate risk assessment and economic modeling [7].

• Intervention Cost-Effectiveness: Research on the economic benefits of specific exposure reduction strategies, particularly for personal care and household products, would inform both public health guidelines and regulatory policies.

• Global Burden Assessments: Most economic analyses have focused on the EU and US, leaving significant gaps in understanding the economic impact in low- and middle-income countries [7].

Addressing these research priorities will enable more precise quantification of the economic burden of EDC exposure and provide policymakers with evidence-based rationale for implementing protective measures.

The regulation of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) presents a critical challenge for public health systems worldwide. EDCs, which interfere with hormone action, are prevalent in personal care and household products, leading to widespread human exposure linked to serious health consequences including cardiometabolic diseases, reproductive disorders, and neurodevelopmental impairments [60] [106]. The regulatory approaches to these chemicals diverge significantly between two major governance models: the European Union's precautionary principle and the United States' risk-based approach [105]. This whitepaper provides a technical analysis of these philosophical frameworks, examining their implementation, scientific requirements, and implications for research and development. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for scientists and drug development professionals navigating global chemical regulations and advancing consumer safety.

Table: Fundamental Distinctions in Regulatory Philosophy

Aspect	EU Precautionary Principle	US Risk-Based Approach
Core Principle	Preventive action despite scientific uncertainty; hazard-based	Regulation only when risk is demonstrated; exposure-based
Burden of Proof	On manufacturers to demonstrate substance safety	On regulators to demonstrate unacceptable risk
Treatment of Uncertainty	Justifies restrictive measures	Often delays regulatory action
Primary Objective	High level of health/environmental protection	Cost-benefit analysis and risk management

EU Regulatory Framework: The Precautionary Principle in Action

Foundational Principles and Legislation

The European Union's approach to EDC regulation is deeply rooted in the precautionary principle, which mandates preventive action even in the face of scientific uncertainty to protect human health and the environment [105] [108]. This principle operates at both risk assessment and risk management stages, allowing political bodies to establish protective measures when scientific evidence is incomplete or uncertain [108]. The EU has incorporated specific obligations against EDCs in key legislative instruments, creating a robust regulatory barrier.

The cornerstone regulations include the Plant Protection Products Regulation (EC 1107/2009) and the Biocidal Products Regulation (EU 528/2012), which explicitly ban EDCs from these product categories [105] [106]. These regulations treat EDCs with similar severity as carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxicants (CMRs). The REACH regulation (EC 1907/2006) further addresses EDCs by categorizing them as "substances of very high concern" subject to authorization, while the Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) regulation has recently proposed adding a specific hazard class for EDCs [109] [106].

Identification Criteria and Scientific Requirements

The EU's scientific criteria for identifying EDCs require conclusive evidence of three elements: an adverse effect, an endocrine activity, and a plausible causal link between the two [105]. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) provide joint guidance for this identification process, which considers both human health and environmental impacts [106]. A notable provision allows for exemptions only if the adverse effect is demonstrated to be irrelevant to humans or if exposure is negligible—establishing a high evidentiary bar for industry [105].

The EU's approach continues to evolve through initiatives like the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan, which aim to further minimize EDC exposure across consumer products including cosmetics, toys, and food contact materials [106]. This dynamic regulatory landscape demonstrates the EU's commitment to progressively strengthening EDC protections as scientific knowledge advances.

US Regulatory Framework: Risk-Based Assessment Paradigm

Legislative Foundations and Implementation

The United States regulatory system for EDCs operates predominantly on a risk-based paradigm that requires evaluation of both a chemical's inherent hazards and anticipated human exposure before implementing restrictions [105]. This approach is embedded in major federal statutes including the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for industrial chemicals, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) for cosmetics and medical devices, and the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) for pesticide residues [105].

Unlike the EU's hazard-based prohibitions, the US system mandates that regulators demonstrate unreasonable risk to human health or the environment before restricting chemicals. This risk determination incorporates economic and social cost-benefit analyses, creating a higher threshold for regulatory intervention [105]. The result is a more permissive regulatory environment where EDCs can remain on the market unless regulatory agencies can prove significant exposure risks.

Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

The primary US initiative for EDC identification is the Environmental Protection Agency's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), established under the FQPA [105] [60]. This program employs a two-tiered testing framework focused exclusively on estrogen, androgen, and thyroid hormone pathways [105]. The EDSP has faced significant implementation challenges, with only approximately 50 pesticides screened through Tier 1 assays to date, and Tier 2 tests not yet fully validated [105].

The US approach has been criticized for its narrow scope, which excludes numerous potential endocrine pathways, and its slow progress in comprehensively evaluating suspected EDCs. Furthermore, sector-specific regulations in cosmetics and medical devices lack explicit EDC provisions, creating regulatory gaps that allow continued use of these chemicals in consumer products [105].

Comparative Analysis: Key Divergences and Implications

Regulatory Outcomes and Public Health Protection

The philosophical divergence between these regulatory systems produces markedly different public health outcomes. The EU's precautionary approach has resulted in more proactive restrictions on EDCs in consumer products, while the US risk-based model often leads to delayed regulatory action until definitive proof of harm is established [105]. Economic analyses underscore the significant costs of this regulatory delay, with EDC exposures estimated to cost the EU €163 billion and the US $340 billion annually in health-related expenditures [105].

The table below illustrates the practical consequences of these philosophical differences across various product sectors:

Table: Sector-Specific Regulatory Approaches to EDCs

Sector	EU Approach	US Approach
Pesticides	EDCs banned unless exposure is negligible; hazard-based criteria [105]	Screening for estrogen, androgen, thyroid effects only; risk-based [105]
Cosmetics	EDCs handled case-by-case; complete bans possible; animal testing prohibited [105] [108]	No specific EDC provisions; "fragrance loophole" protects trade secrets [105]
Medical Devices	EDCs permitted >0.1% only under specific conditions [105]	No specific EDC provisions under FFDCA [105]
Industrial Chemicals	EDCs identified as SVHC under REACH; subject to authorization [106]	EDCs not specified under TSCA; risk-based evaluation [105]

Scientific and Methodological Considerations

The contrasting regulatory philosophies necessitate different experimental approaches and evidentiary standards for EDC identification. The EU's framework incorporates low-dose effects and non-monotonic dose responses, which are characteristic of endocrine disruption [106]. It also recognizes heightened vulnerability during critical windows of development, including prenatal and early-life exposures that can manifest as disease later in life [106] [60].

Conversely, the US system often relies on traditional toxicological testing that may lack sensitivity to detect endocrine-specific mechanisms and low-dose effects [110]. The continued dependence on high-dose animal studies and linear dose-response models creates significant scientific limitations for identifying EDCs, which frequently exhibit complex, non-linear toxicity patterns [106].

Diagram 1: Decision Pathways in EU vs. US Regulatory Frameworks

Emerging Approaches and Future Directions

Advancements in Testing Methodologies

Globally, regulatory science is transitioning toward New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) that address limitations of traditional toxicological testing [109] [110]. These innovative strategies include:

• In vitro high-throughput screening assays that rapidly evaluate chemical effects across multiple endocrine pathways
• In silico computational models and structure-activity relationship predictions that identify potential EDCs based on molecular characteristics
• Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) frameworks that map mechanistic sequences from molecular initiation to adverse health effects
• Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA) that combine multiple data sources for comprehensive risk evaluation [110]

These approaches offer more mechanistically informed, cost-effective, and animal-free testing strategies that can keep pace with the thousands of chemicals requiring evaluation. Canada's regulatory modernization efforts exemplify how NAMs are being integrated into chemical assessment frameworks to enhance efficiency and biological relevance [110].

Policy Innovations and Global Harmonization

Future regulatory developments will likely focus on addressing chemical mixture effects, which present significant challenges to current single-substance evaluation paradigms [109]. Emerging evidence indicates that combined exposures to multiple EDCs can produce additive or synergistic effects even when individual chemicals are below effect thresholds [109]. The EU is pioneering methodologies for cumulative risk assessment that better reflect real-world exposure scenarios.

International harmonization efforts are also gaining momentum, with proposals for establishing an International Agency for Research on EDCs (IARE) to coordinate global identification and regulation [105]. Additionally, the development of ten key characteristics of EDCs aims to create standardized identification criteria across jurisdictions, facilitating more consistent regulatory outcomes worldwide [60].

Research Applications and Methodological Considerations

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table: Key Research Reagents and Platforms for EDC Investigation

Reagent/Platform	Function/Application	Regulatory Relevance
IUCLID Software	Data management for regulatory submissions; standardized format for toxicological data [109]	Required for EU REACH dossiers
OECD Test Guidelines	Internationally recognized standardized testing protocols [109]	Accepted across multiple jurisdictions
High-Throughput Screening	Rapid in vitro assessment of endocrine activity across multiple pathways [110]	Increasingly accepted in NAMs
BMD Software	Benchmark dose modeling for quantitative risk assessment [109]	Used in reference value derivation
Metabolomics Platforms	Comprehensive analysis of metabolic changes from EDC exposure [60]	Mechanistic evidence for AOP development

Experimental Protocols for EDC Assessment

For researchers investigating EDCs in personal care and household products, comprehensive assessment requires integrated testing strategies. The following protocol outlines key methodological considerations:

Comprehensive Endocrine Disruption Screening Protocol

• Receptor Binding Assays

  • Conduct competitive binding assays for nuclear receptors (ERα, ERβ, AR, TR, PR, GR)
  • Include membrane receptors (GPER, MR) for comprehensive coverage
  • Apply concentration ranges from 10^-12 M to 10^-6 M to detect low-dose effects

• Cellular Response Characterization

  • Implement reporter gene assays in multiple cell lines (e.g., MELN, HEK293)
  • Measure transcriptional activation and antagonism
  • Assess non-monotonic dose responses with adequate data points (minimum 8 concentrations)

• Hormone Synthesis and Metabolism Analysis

  • Quantify steroidogenic enzyme expression and activity (CYP11A1, CYP17A1, CYP19A1)
  • Evaluate hormone clearance pathways (SULT, UGT enzymes)
  • Assess thyroid hormone homeostasis (deiodinases, transthyretin)

• Developmental and Transgenerational Studies

  • Employ zebrafish embryo model for rapid developmental screening
  • Utilize mammalian models (rat/mouse) for prenatal and lactational exposure studies
  • Implement multi-generational breeding schemes to capture latent and heritable effects

This integrated approach addresses the complex mechanisms of endocrine disruption and provides comprehensive data relevant to both EU and US regulatory frameworks.

Diagram 2: Integrated Testing Strategy for EDC Assessment

The comparative analysis of the EU's precautionary principle and the US risk-based approach reveals fundamentally different philosophical foundations with significant implications for public health protection against EDCs in personal care and household products. The EU's hazard-based, preventive model generally provides more stringent oversight and faster action against suspected EDCs, while the US system requires more extensive evidence of harm before regulatory intervention. For the research community, understanding these distinctions is essential for designing toxicological studies that meet regulatory requirements across jurisdictions. The ongoing development of New Approach Methodologies and international harmonization initiatives offer promising pathways toward more efficient and protective regulatory systems capable of addressing the complex challenges posed by endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

This whitepaper evaluates the effectiveness of global bans and phase-outs on two significant classes of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs): polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and specific parabens. EDCs present in personal care and household products represent a significant concern for public health due to their potential to interfere with hormonal systems. While these chemicals have been subject to regulatory restrictions, their persistence in the environment and human bodies, along with ongoing exposure pathways, complicates the assessment of policy effectiveness. This analysis synthesizes current evidence from biomonitoring studies, environmental sampling, and regulatory reviews to provide researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with a comprehensive technical assessment of how these chemical regulations have performed in practice, highlighting both successes and limitations in reducing human exposure and health risks.

Case Study: Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs)

Regulatory Timeline and Key Formulations

PBDEs are a class of brominated flame retardants previously used extensively in electronics, furniture, textiles, and other consumer products. Their regulatory timeline reflects growing concerns about their persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) characteristics. The three primary commercial formulations—penta-BDE, octa-BDE, and deca-BDE—faced sequential restrictions:

• Penta-BDE and Octa-BDE: Banned in most countries in the early 2000s and listed under the Stockholm Convention in 2009 with certain recycling exemptions [111].
• Deca-BDE: Phase-out began in the United States in 2009, with addition to the Stockholm Convention in 2017 with exemptions for vehicle parts until 2036 [111].
• United States Specifics: Regulatory and voluntary measures resulted in discontinuation of penta- and octa-BDE formulations by end of 2004, and the deca-BDE formulation by end of 2013 [112].

Table 1: Primary PBDE Commercial Formulations and Their Applications

Formulation	Primary Composition	Major Product Applications	Regulatory Status
Penta-BDE	BDE-47, BDE-99, BDE-100, BDE-153, BDE-154	Polyurethane foam in furniture and carpet padding	Banned in most countries early 2000s; Stockholm Convention 2009
Octa-BDE	BDE-183, BDE-207, BDE-203, BDE-209, BDE-197	Hard plastic casings in electronics	Banned in most countries early 2000s; Stockholm Convention 2009
Deca-BDE	Primarily BDE-209	Hard plastics, textiles, adhesives, wire insulation	Phase-out began 2009; Stockholm Convention 2017 with exemptions

Effectiveness of PBDE Bans: Exposure Trends and Biomarker Analysis

Meta-analyses of historical measurement data reveal complex temporal patterns in PBDE concentrations following regulatory actions. A comprehensive analysis of 343 studies from 94 countries found that while PBDE emissions in indoor environments have decreased following policy interventions, reductions in human body burdens have been delayed and slow [111]. Breakpoint regression modeling identified significant turning points for some congeners but not others:

• Significant decreases were observed for BDE-47 and BDE-99 in human milk in the EU, China, and the USA [111].
• No decreasing trend was evident for BDE-153, nor for the higher-brominated BDE-183 and BDE-209 in most regions [111].
• Delayed response in human serum levels, with only BDE-153 showing a significant decline in the EU (p=0.0099) in adult serum [111].

A temporal study of older California women (2011-2015) revealed contrasting findings, with modest but statistically significant average annual percent increases in serum concentrations of BDE-47, BDE-100, and BDE-153 during this period, suggesting that earlier reported declines may have plateaued and potentially reversed [112].

Table 2: Temporal Trends of Select PBDE Congeners in Human Matrices Post-Regulation

Congener	Matrix	Region	Temporal Trend (Post-Regulation)	Statistical Significance
BDE-47	Human milk	EU	Significant decrease with turning point (1996)	p<0.0001 [111]
BDE-47	Human milk	USA	Significant decrease	p=0.0023 [111]
BDE-47	Serum	California, USA	Modest annual increase (2011-2015)	Statistically significant [112]
BDE-99	Human milk	EU	Significant decrease with turning point (1997)	p<0.0001 [111]
BDE-153	Human milk	Multiple	No decreasing trend	Not significant [111]
BDE-153	Serum	EU	Significant decline	p=0.0099 [111]
BDE-209	Multiple	Multiple	No decreasing trend	Not significant [111]

Factors Composing PBDE Ban Effectiveness

The effectiveness of PBDE restrictions is influenced by several interconnected factors:

• Long-term emissions from existing products: Large stocks of PBDE-treated products remain in use after bans, continuing to release these chemicals into environments [111].
• Bioaccumulation potential: PBDEs, especially BDE-153, accumulate in lipid-rich tissues, resulting in prolonged persistence in human bodies despite reduced environmental concentrations [111].
• Regional policy enforcement variability: Differing implementation of regulations across countries creates disparities in exposure reduction [111].
• Varying chemical properties: The diversity of PBDE congeners with different physicochemical properties affects their environmental fate and human pharmacokinetics [111].
• Multiple exposure pathways: Inhalation and dermal exposure to atmospheric PBDEs vary globally, with Europeans primarily exposed to gaseous PBDEs, while Africans are more exposed to particulate-phase PBDEs [113].

Case Study: Parabens

Regulatory Status of Specific Parabens

Parabens (alkyl esters of p-hydroxybenzoic acid) are widely used as antimicrobial preservatives in cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and food processing. Regulatory approaches to parabens have varied significantly across regions:

• European Union: The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) concluded methylparaben and ethylparaben are safe at maximum authorized concentrations (up to 0.4% for one ester or 0.8% in combination). Butylparaben and propylparaben are considered safe when the sum of individual concentrations does not exceed 0.19%. Isopropylparaben, isobutylparaben, phenylparaben, benzylparaben and pentylparaben were banned by European Commission Regulation (EU) No 358/2014 [114].
• United States: The FDA continues to review published studies on paraben safety and currently does not have information showing that parabens as used in cosmetics have an effect on human health. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review expert panel has deemed methyl, ethyl, propyl, isopropyl, butyl, isobutyl, and benzyl parabens safe as cosmetic ingredients at specified concentrations [115].

Effectiveness Assessment: Exposure Patterns and Environmental Persistence

Unlike PBDEs, comprehensive longitudinal studies evaluating the effectiveness of paraben restrictions are limited. However, biomonitoring data reveals widespread and continuous human exposure:

• Ubiquitous Detection: NHANES 2005-2006 data found methylparaben (MP) and propylparaben (PP) in 99.1% and 92.7% of urine samples, respectively, with ethylparaben and butylparaben detected less frequently (42.4% and 47%) [116].
• Demographic Variations: Females had significantly higher geometric mean concentrations of MP and PP than males, reflecting differential use of personal care products [116]. Non-Hispanic blacks had significantly higher MP concentrations than non-Hispanic whites across most age groups [116].
• Environmental Persistence: Despite wastewater treatment plants eliminating 92-98% of parent paraben derivatives, degradation products like chlorinated parabens and PHBA (4-hydroxybenzoic acid) persist in environmental matrices [114]. Chlorinated parabens are removed with only 40% efficiency compared to parent parabens [114].

Table 3: Urinary Paraben Concentrations in the U.S. Population (NHANES 2005-2006)

Paraben	Detection Frequency	Median Concentration (μg/L)	Population Groups with Highest Exposure
Methylparaben	99.1%	63.5	Females, Non-Hispanic Blacks
Propylparaben	92.7%	8.7	Females, Non-Hispanic Blacks
Ethylparaben	42.4%		Not determined
Butylparaben	47.0%		Not determined

Experimental Methodologies for EDC Monitoring

Analytical Techniques for PBDE Measurement in Human Serum

Comprehensive biomonitoring requires sophisticated analytical methods to detect EDCs at trace concentrations in complex biological matrices:

• Sample Preparation: Thawed serum samples (2 mL) are fortified with 13C12-labeled surrogate standards. Equal volumes (4 mL) of formic acid and water are added before loading on solid-phase extraction (SPE) modules [112].
• Extraction and Cleanup: Oasis HLB cartridges (3 cc, 500 mg) and acidified silica (500°C prebaked, manually packed, 3 cc) are used for sample extraction and cleanup, respectively [112].
• Instrumental Analysis: Automated solid phase extraction coupled with gas chromatography/high resolution mass spectrometry (GC-HRMS) provides the necessary sensitivity and specificity. The final eluates in hexane:dichloromethane (1:1) are concentrated using TurboVap and spiked with recovery standards [112].
• Quality Assurance: Standard reference material (SRM 1958) and bovine serum pre-spiked with known amounts of target analytes serve as QA/QC samples. Participation in performance evaluation systems (e.g., Arctic Monitoring & Assessment Program) ensures analytical rigor [112].

Methodologies for Paraben Analysis in Environmental and Biological Samples

• Urine Sample Processing: Paraben conjugates in urine (100 μL) are hydrolyzed using β-glucuronidase/sulfatase (Helix pomatia). Parabens are preconcentrated by online solid-phase extraction, separated by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography, and detected by atmospheric pressure chemical ionization–isotope dilution/tandem mass spectrometry with peak focusing [116].
• Environmental Sampling: Outdoor air sampling typically uses paired gas- and particle-phase collectors, while soil samples are collected from various land use types (commercial, residential, agricultural) to assess anthropogenic influences [117].
• Exposure Assessment: Estimated daily intake (EDI) calculations incorporate inhalation rates of air and ingestion rates of soil, comparing results to daily acceptable intake values where established [117].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Materials and Reagents

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for EDC Analysis

Reagent/ Material	Application	Technical Specifications	Research Function
13C12-labeled surrogate standards	PBDE analysis	Isotopically labeled analogs of target PBDE congeners	Internal standards for quantification and recovery correction
Oasis HLB cartridges	Solid-phase extraction	3 cc, 500 mg polymeric sorbent	Extraction of PBDEs from serum and environmental samples
Acidified silica	Sample cleanup	500°C prebaked, manually packed, 3 cc	Removal of lipids and other interfering compounds
β-glucuronidase/sulfatase	Paraben analysis	Helix pomatia preparation	Enzymatic deconjugation of paraben metabolites in urine
Formic acid	Sample preparation	High purity, LC-MS grade	Protein precipitation and sample acidification for SPE
Standard Reference Material 1958	Quality assurance	NIST-certified frozen human serum	Method validation and accuracy assessment
Size-fractionated particulate samplers	Air sampling	Multiple stage impactors for particle size separation	Collection of airborne particulate matter for exposure assessment

The effectiveness of bans and phase-outs on PBDEs and parabens demonstrates both the potential and limitations of chemical regulation strategies. For PBDEs, regulatory actions have successfully reduced environmental emissions and human exposure to some congeners, but persistent stocks in existing products, continued exemptions, and the chemicals' inherent PBT properties have resulted in prolonged human exposure and delayed health protection. For parabens, targeted restrictions on specific esters have been implemented in some regions, but comprehensive effectiveness evaluation is hampered by limited longitudinal biomonitoring data and the continuous introduction of paraben-containing products. Moving forward, a more precautionary approach to chemical regulation, combined with enhanced global biomonitoring efforts and consideration of degradation products, will be essential for effectively protecting public health from EDCs in personal care and household products. Future research should prioritize longitudinal studies that track both parent compounds and their metabolites across diverse populations to better understand the relationship between regulatory actions and human exposure reduction.

The study of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in personal care and household products represents a critical frontier in environmental health research. Humans are consistently exposed to these chemicals through dermal contact, inhalation, and ingestion, with growing evidence linking EDC exposure to adverse health outcomes including impaired fertility, metabolic disorders, and neurodevelopmental effects [1] [59]. As analytical methods evolve to detect increasingly trace levels of EDCs in complex matrices, the environmental footprint and practical feasibility of these methods themselves must be scrutinized. This necessitates robust benchmarking frameworks that can simultaneously assess ecological impact and practical applicability.

The paradigm of White Analytical Chemistry (WAC) has emerged to address this need through a tripartite model that balances the green (environmental), red (analytical performance), and blue (practicality) aspects of analytical methods [118] [119]. Within this framework, this technical guide focuses on two specialized metric tools: the Modified Green Analytical Procedure Index (MoGAPI) for comprehensive environmental assessment [120] and the Blue Applicability Grade Index (BAGI) for evaluating methodological practicality [118]. When applied to the analysis of EDCs in personal care products, these tools provide researchers with a standardized approach to develop methods that are not only scientifically valid but also environmentally responsible and readily implementable in routine laboratory settings.

Theoretical Foundations: MoGAPI and BAGI Metric Structures

MoGAPI: Evolution of Environmental Assessment

The Modified Green Analytical Procedure Index (MoGAPI) represents a significant advancement in green metrics by addressing a critical limitation of its predecessor, the Green Analytical Procedure Index (GAPI). While the original GAPI tool provides a valuable visual overview of environmental impact across five pentagrams representing different analytical stages, it lacks a quantitative scoring system to facilitate direct comparison between methods [120]. MoGAPI rectifies this limitation by integrating the visual strengths of GAPI with the quantitative approach of the Analytical Eco-Scale, thereby enabling both categorical and comparative greenness assessment [120] [119].

The MoGAPI scoring algorithm operates on a credit system where each aspect of the analytical procedure is evaluated against ideal green criteria. For example, in sample collection, in-line collection receives the maximum score (3 credits), online collection receives an intermediate score (2 credits), and offline collection receives the minimum score (1 credit) [120]. The total credits are summed and divided by the maximum possible credits to calculate a percentage score. Non-applicable components are excluded from the calculation to prevent artificial depression of the score. This quantitative output allows methods to be classified into three clear categories: excellent green (≥75), acceptable green (50-74), and inadequately green (<50) [120].

BAGI: Quantifying Methodological Practicality

The Blue Applicability Grade Index (BAGI) serves as a complementary metric that focuses exclusively on the practical aspects of analytical methods, corresponding to the "blue" component of the White Analytical Chemistry model [118]. Whereas green metrics evaluate environmental impact, BAGI assesses ten key attributes related to practical implementation:

• Type of analysis (qualitative, screening, quantitative, quantitative and confirmatory)
• Number of simultaneously determined analytes
• Required instrumentation and analytical technique
• Number of samples that can be simultaneously treated
• Sample preparation approach
• Sample throughput (samples per hour)
• Reagents and materials requirements
• Preconcentration requirements
• Automation degree
• Sample amount required [118]

Each attribute is scored on a four-tier scale with corresponding colors: 10 points (dark blue), 7.5 points (blue), 5.0 points (light blue), and 2.5 points (white). The collective assessment generates an asteroid pictogram with an overall score that quantitatively represents the method's practicality [118]. Importantly, BAGI adjusts evaluation criteria based on the field of application, recognizing that practical constraints differ significantly between, for instance, bioanalytical methods requiring minimal sample volumes and environmental analyses where larger samples may be readily available [118].

Integrated Workflow for Method Assessment

The complementary application of MoGAPI and BAGI creates a comprehensive assessment framework that guides researchers from method development to implementation. The following workflow diagram illustrates the integrated benchmarking process:

Experimental Protocols: Application to EDC Analysis

Case Study: GC-MS Analysis of Paracetamol and Metoclopramide

A recently published GC-MS method for the simultaneous quantification of paracetamol and metoclopramide in pharmaceutical formulations and human plasma provides an illustrative example of integrated metric application [121]. This method was specifically designed to address the environmental limitations of prior liquid chromatography approaches that consumed substantial volumes of hazardous organic solvents in their mobile phases.

Experimental Protocol:

• Instrumentation: Agilent 7890A GC system coupled with an Agilent 5975C inert mass spectrophotometer with Triple Axis Detector [121].
• Column: Agilent 19091s-433: 2330.46415, 5% Phenyl Methyl Silox (30 m × 250 μm × 0.25 μm) [121].
• Carrier Gas: Helium at a constant flow rate of 2 mL per minute [121].
• Temperature Settings: Transfer line maintained at 280°C, source quadrupole at 230°C, and ion source at 150°C [121].
• Detection: Operated in selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode with detection at m/z 109 for paracetamol and m/z 86 for metoclopramide [121].
• Sample Preparation: Plasma samples were deproteinized prior to ultrasound-assisted dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction using dodecanol as an extractant [121].
• Calibration: Linear range of 0.2-80 μg/mL for paracetamol (r² = 0.9999) and 0.3-90 μg/mL for metoclopramide (r² = 0.9988) [121].

Greenness and Practicality Assessment: The method achieved a BAGI score of 82.5, reflecting excellent practicality for routine application, complemented by strong greenness scores across three additional metrics [121]. The environmental advantage stemmed primarily from the elimination of liquid mobile phases and associated organic solvents, significantly reducing hazardous waste generation compared to HPLC-based methods [121].

Case Study: Analysis of Antiviral Agents in Environmental Water

A separate study applied a modified GAPI assessment to an HPLC-UV method for analyzing antiviral agents in environmental water, utilizing dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction with a chloroform and dodecanol mixture (30:70, v:v) [120].

Experimental Protocol:

• Extraction Technique: Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction [120].
• Extraction Solvent: Chloroform and dodecanol mixture (30:70, v:v) [120].
• Chromatographic Conditions:
  • Stationary Phase: Conventional Hypersil ODS C18 column [120].
  • Mobile Phase: Acetonitrile and phosphate buffer (50 mM, pH 6) in 50:50 ratio [120].
• Energy Consumption: ≤1.5 kWh per sample [120].
• Waste Generation: 1-10 mL per sample with hermetic sealing [120].

Assessment Outcome: The method received a MoGAPI score of 70, categorizing it as intermediate greenness [120]. This score reflected a balance between the green advantages of microextraction (reduced solvent consumption) and the environmental drawbacks of using chlorinated solvents [120].

Comparative Metric Scores Across Analytical Techniques

Table 1: Greenness and Practicality Scores of Analytical Methods for EDC Detection

Analytical Method	Application Matrix	MoGAPI Score	BAGI Score	Key Strengths	Key Limitations
GC-MS [121]	Pharmaceuticals and human plasma	Not reported	82.5	High throughput, confirmatory capability, minimal solvent use	Sophisticated instrumentation required
HPLC-UV [120]	Environmental water	70	Not reported	Microextraction reduces solvent volume	Chlorinated solvents, moderate waste generation
SULLME [119]	Antiviral compounds	60	Not reported	Green solvents, miniaturization	Specific storage conditions, vapor emissions

Implementation Framework: Integrated Assessment Protocol

Data Collection Requirements for Metric Calculation

To apply the MoGAPI and BAGI metrics effectively, researchers must systematically compile specific methodological data. The following diagram illustrates the key data inputs required for each assessment tool:

Computational Tools and Software Implementation

Both MoGAPI and BAGI are supported by dedicated software tools that streamline the assessment process:

• MoGAPI Software: Freely available as open-source software at bit.ly/MoGAPI, this tool automatically generates both the colored pentagram visualization and the quantitative greenness score based on user inputs [120].
• BAGI Software: Accessible through multiple platforms including a desktop application (mostwiedzy.pl/bagi) and web application (bagi-index.anvil.app), this tool calculates applicability scores and generates the corresponding asteroid pictogram [118].

These computational tools standardize the assessment process, minimize subjective interpretation, and enable direct comparison between methods through quantitative outputs.

Research Reagent Solutions for Green EDC Analysis

Table 2: Essential Materials and Reagents for Green Analytical Methods in EDC Research

Reagent/Material	Function in Analysis	Green Alternatives	Practical Considerations
Dodecanol [120]	Extraction solvent in dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction	Replace chlorinated solvents	Low volatility, moderate toxicity, biodegradable
Acetonitrile [120]	HPLC mobile phase component	Ethanol, water-based mobile phases	High toxicity but often essential for separation efficiency
Phosphate Buffer [120]	Mobile phase modifier in HPLC	Green buffers (e.g., citrate)	Low environmental impact, may affect detection
Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate [120]	Dynamic column modification in HPLC	Biobased surfactants	Enables separation without specialized columns
Ethanol [121]	Sample preparation solvent	Supercritical CO₂	Renewable source, lower toxicity than methanol/acetonitrile
Helium [121]	Carrier gas in GC-MS	Hydrogen (with safety precautions)	Non-renewable resource, supply concerns
Sulfuric Acid [120]	Mobile phase component for ion chromatography	Alternative separation mechanisms	Low concentration reduces hazard, proper disposal essential

The integration of MoGAPI and BAGI metrics provides a comprehensive framework for developing analytical methods that balance environmental responsibility with practical feasibility. In the critical field of EDC research, where monitoring complex chemical exposures in personal care products is essential for understanding human health impacts, these tools enable researchers to quantify and optimize both ecological footprint and implementation practicality. The standardized scoring systems facilitate objective comparison between methods, while the visual outputs quickly communicate strengths and limitations across multiple dimensions.

As regulatory pressure increases and scientific consensus strengthens regarding the health impacts of EDCs [1] [59], the analytical chemistry community must lead by example in adopting sustainable laboratory practices. The MoGAPI and BAGI frameworks represent significant advances toward this goal, providing practical tools that align with the principles of White Analytical Chemistry. By implementing these metrics during method development and validation, researchers can significantly reduce the environmental impact of their work while maintaining the high-quality data necessary to inform public health decisions and regulatory policies for endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) represent a class of nearly 85,000 man-made substances, with approximately 1,000 or more suspected of interfering with hormonal systems, leading to widespread health concerns including infertility, metabolic disorders, neurodevelopmental issues, and various hormone-related cancers [22] [2]. The global nature of chemical production and distribution, particularly in personal care and household products, creates an urgent need for harmonized classification and labeling systems that transcend national boundaries. The Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) serves as the foundational framework for this effort, providing standardized criteria for chemical hazard communication worldwide [122].

The recent adoption of GHS Revision 11 in September 2025 marks a significant advancement in how endocrine-disrupting chemicals are identified, classified, and regulated across international markets [123]. This revision responds to growing scientific evidence of EDCs' health impacts at low exposure levels and their persistence in environmental and biological systems. For researchers and drug development professionals, these changes establish more rigorous protocols for identifying endocrine-active substances and create consistent benchmarks for evaluating health risks across research programs and regulatory submissions [124] [2]. This technical guide examines the specific updates introduced in GHS Revision 11, their implications for EDC research methodologies, and the standardized frameworks now available for assessing endocrine-disrupting potential in chemical substances.

Key Updates in GHS Revision 11 Relevant to EDC Research

GHS Revision 11 introduces several critical modifications that directly impact the classification and handling of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in scientific and regulatory contexts. These updates refine existing categories and introduce new hazard classifications that acknowledge the unique properties of EDCs.

Enhanced Criteria for Endocrine Disruptor Classification

The revised classification system provides more detailed criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors, creating a standardized framework that researchers must apply when evaluating chemical substances. Revision 11 refines the categorization criteria for endocrine-disrupting chemicals, offering clearer guidance on the evidence needed to classify a substance as a suspected or known endocrine disruptor [124] [123]. This includes:

• Tiered evaluation approaches that prioritize certain types of data
• Standardized evidence requirements for both human and environmental endocrine disruption
• Updated testing methodologies aligned with current scientific understanding

These refinements enable more consistent identification of EDCs across international research programs and facilitate better data comparability in global market applications [123].

New Hazard Categories for Atmospheric and Environmental Impacts

GHS Revision 11 expands environmental hazard classifications to address the persistence and environmental transport characteristics common to many EDCs:

• "Hazardous to the Atmospheric System": This expanded category replaces the previous "Hazardous to the Ozone Layer" classification and introduces a new subcategory for chemicals "Contributing to Global Warming" [123]. This is particularly relevant for EDCs like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that have both endocrine-disrupting properties and significant environmental persistence [22] [124].

• Global Warming Potential (GWP) Integration: The formal inclusion of GWP as a classification metric provides a standardized approach for assessing the climate impact of chemicals, which researchers must now factor into environmental risk assessments for EDCs [123].

Table 1: New and Revised Hazard Categories in GHS Revision 11 Relevant to EDC Research

Hazard Category	Previous Classification	Revision 11 Updates	Relevant EDC Classes
Endocrine Disruptors	Limited guidance	Refined criteria and evidence requirements	Phthalates, BPA, PFAS, PCBs
Hazardous to the Atmospheric System	Hazardous to the Ozone Layer	Expanded to include global warming potential	PFAS, dioxins, certain solvents
Skin Sensitization	Single approach	Tiered evaluation with new assessment methods	Phthalates, fragrances, preservatives
Pressurized Chemicals	Included with aerosols	Separate definition and classification	Aerosolized EDCs in personal care products

Updated Precautionary Statements and Safety Data Sheet Requirements

The revision introduces new precautionary statements that specifically address emerging concerns with EDCs:

• P322 and P323 statements for acute toxicity requiring specific treatment [123]
• P502 disposal guidance emphasizing recycling information for substances contributing to global warming
• Enhanced safety data sheet requirements for endocrine-disrupting properties in Section 2 [123]

These updates ensure that endocrine-disrupting hazards are clearly communicated throughout the product lifecycle, from manufacturing to disposal [124] [123].

Analytical Methodologies for EDC Detection and Biomoniitoring

Accurate classification of chemicals under GHS Revision 11 requires robust analytical methodologies for detecting and quantifying EDCs in various matrices. Understanding the strengths and limitations of these methods is essential for researchers studying endocrine disruption.

Conventional Instrument-Based Analysis

Traditional approaches to EDC analysis rely on sophisticated instrumentation with high sensitivity and specificity:

• Liquid or Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC/GC-MS): These techniques remain the gold standard for EDC quantification in complex matrices such as urine, serum, breast milk, water, soil, and food products [125]. PFAS and phthalates are typically analyzed using LC-MS/MS, while aromatic hydrocarbons are more commonly measured using GC-MS or GC-HRMS [125].

• High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry (HRMS): Provides superior analytical specificity for identifying novel EDCs and metabolic transformation products in environmental and biological samples [125].

While these methods offer exceptional sensitivity and multi-analyte capability, they are laboratory-bound, require extensive sample preparation, and may not be amenable to rapid field deployment or high-throughput screening [125].

Advanced Sensing Technologies for Rapid EDC Detection

Emerging sensor technologies offer promising alternatives for rapid, on-site EDC detection with applications in environmental monitoring and product safety testing:

• Electrochemical sensors utilize specialized electrodes functionalized with molecular recognition elements (antibodies, aptamers, molecularly imprinted polymers) that generate electrical signals upon EDC binding [125].

• Optical biosensors employ transduction mechanisms including surface plasmon resonance (SPR), fluorescence, and colorimetry to detect EDC interactions with high sensitivity [125].

• Aptamer-based sensors exploit the specific binding properties of synthetic nucleic acids against target EDCs like BPA, phthalates, and heavy metals [125].

• Microbial sensors utilize genetically engineered microorganisms that produce detectable signals in response to endocrine-active compounds [125].

Table 2: Comparison of Analytical Methods for EDC Detection and Monitoring

Methodology	Detection Limit Range	Throughput	Portability	Key Applications
LC-MS/MS	ppt-ppb	Low-medium	No	Regulatory testing, biomonitoring
GC-MS	ppt-ppb	Low-medium	No	Volatile EDC analysis
Electrochemical Sensors	ppb-ppm	High	Yes	Field screening, rapid detection
Optical Biosensors	ppb-ppm	Medium-high	Portable systems available	Continuous monitoring, lab analysis
Aptamer-based Sensors	ppb-ppm	High	Yes	Point-of-care testing, environmental monitoring

Novel Biomonitoring Approaches Using Alternative Matrices

Hair analysis has emerged as a complementary biomonitoring approach that provides a longer exposure window compared to blood or urine measurements. For EDCs with short physiological half-lives, hair can accumulate these substances over time, offering a historical record of exposure [126]. The analytical process typically involves:

• Sample collection from the back of the head (most common)
• Preparation through cutting into small pieces or grinding to powder
• Extraction using appropriate solvents
• Analysis primarily via off-line LC-MS/MS methods [126]

Key challenges in hair analysis include addressing potential external contamination and developing effective decontamination protocols to distinguish internal exposure from environmental deposition [126].

Research Reagent Solutions for EDC Analysis

The accurate classification of EDCs under GHS Revision 11 requires specialized reagents and reference materials that enable precise identification and quantification of endocrine-active substances.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for EDC Analysis and Testing

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	GHS Classification Relevance
Certified Reference Materials	BPA, phthalates, PFAS, PCB standards	Instrument calibration, method validation	Quantitative risk assessment for classification
Immunoassay Reagents	Anti-BPA antibodies, phthalate detectors	High-throughput screening, biosensor development	Rapid identification of potential EDCs
Aptamer Sequences	BPA-specific aptamers, PFAS binders	Sensor functionalization, selective capture	Structure-activity relationship studies
Molecular Receptors	Engineered estrogen/androgen receptors	In vitro endocrine activity screening	Definitive endocrine disruption classification
Metabolic Enzymes	Cytochrome P450 isoforms, glucuronidases	Biotransformation studies, metabolite generation	Understanding endocrine activity mechanisms
Cell Lines	MCF-7 breast cancer cells, MDA-kb2	Reporter gene assays, proliferation studies	Mechanistic evaluation of endocrine disruption

Regulatory Implications for Personal Care and Household Products

The implementation of GHS Revision 11 occurs alongside significant regulatory changes in key markets, creating a complex compliance landscape for manufacturers and researchers of personal care and household products.

Alignment with MoCRA and Regional Regulations

In the United States, the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA) establishes new requirements for cosmetic safety substantiation that directly intersect with GHS Classification [124] [88]. Key overlapping requirements include:

• Mandatory facility registration and product listing with the FDA by January 2025 [124]
• Safety substantiation requiring scientific evidence proving product safety, including assessment of endocrine-disrupting properties [88]
• Adverse event reporting within 15 business days for serious health incidents [124]

The European Union's regulatory framework continues to evolve with expanded fragrance allergen labelling (from 24 to 80 substances) and France's pioneering ban on PFAS in cosmetics effective January 2026 [127]. These regional developments increasingly align with GHS hazard classification principles, creating de facto harmonization across major markets.

Impact on Product Formulation and Market Access

The convergence of GHS Revision 11 with regional regulations directly impacts product development and market strategy:

• Reformulation challenges to eliminate classified EDCs like PFAS, phthalates, and certain parabens [124]
• Supply chain disruptions as manufacturers seek compliant alternatives to restricted substances [88]
• Market access risks with non-compliance potentially resulting in recalls, fines, and exclusion from key markets [88]

GHS Revision 11 represents a significant step forward in standardizing the classification of endocrine-disrupting chemicals across international markets. For researchers and drug development professionals, these updates provide a more rigorous framework for identifying and evaluating endocrine-active substances, enabling better cross-study comparisons and more consistent safety assessments. The enhanced classification criteria, combined with advanced analytical methodologies and reagent systems, create a robust infrastructure for EDC research that aligns with regulatory needs across major global markets.

As regional regulations continue to evolve and incorporate GHS principles, researchers must maintain awareness of both the technical requirements for EDC identification and the regulatory contexts in which these classifications are applied. The ongoing harmonization effort, while creating short-term compliance challenges, ultimately strengthens the scientific foundation for identifying and managing endocrine-disrupting chemicals in personal care and household products worldwide.

Conclusion

The pervasive presence of EDCs in personal care and household products presents a significant and complex challenge to human health, necessitating a multidisciplinary research and regulatory response. Foundational science has firmly established the mechanisms and health risks, while advanced analytical methodologies now enable more precise detection and biomonitoring. However, troubleshooting reformulation and compliance amidst a rapidly evolving 2025 regulatory landscape requires significant industry adaptation. Validation through economic and comparative policy analysis underscores the immense cost of inaction and the variable efficacy of global regulatory approaches. Future directions for biomedical and clinical research must prioritize the development of comprehensive EDC screening protocols integrated into pre-market safety assessment, investment in green chemistry for safer alternatives, longitudinal studies on low-dose mixture effects, and the incorporation of EDC exposure as a variable in clinical trial design and drug safety evaluation to fully understand its impact on therapeutic outcomes and public health.

References

• 1. Role of personal care products as endocrine disruptors ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12289576/]
• 2. Endocrine Disruptors [https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine]
• 3. Consensus on the key characteristics of endocrine ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-019-0273-8]
• 4. Early-life exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals may ... [https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/endo-annual-meeting/endo-2025-press-releases/hilz-press-release]
• 5. The Beauty Edit Study | Research Studies [https://hsph.harvard.edu/research/mahalingaiah-lab/research/research-studies/the-beauty-edit-study/]
• 6. Socioeconomic status in the association between use of ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1537669/full]
• 7. Global research on endocrine disruptors as emerging hazards ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12240779/]
• 8. Endocrine active substances - EFSA - European Union [https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/endocrine-active-substances]
• 9. Food packaging and endocrine disruptors - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10960186/]
• 10. Determination of bisphenol A in different types of soft drink ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-09306-2]
• 11. Bisphenol A and its replacement chemicals as endocrine ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590182625000372]
• 12. A Comparative Assessment of Bisphenol A and Its ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40817891/]
• 13. Quantitative Determination of Bisphenol A and Its ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9737382/]
• 14. Phthalates in cosmetic and personal care products [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21315328/]
• 15. Personal care product use patterns in association with ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-023-00627-w]
• 16. Endocrine effects of parabens [https://foodpackagingforum.org/news/endocrine-effects-of-parabens]
• 17. EPA Announces It Will Keep Maximum Contaminant Levels ... [https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-it-will-keep-maximum-contaminant-levels-pfoa-pfos]
• 18. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | US EPA [https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas]
• 19. Associations Between Endocrine-Disrupting Chemical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12299029/]
• 20. Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2726844/]
• 21. Effects of human exposure to hormone-disrupting ... [https://www.who.int/news/item/19-02-2013-effects-of-human-exposure-to-hormone-disrupting-chemicals-examined-in-landmark-un-report]
• 22. Common EDCs and Where They Are Found [https://www.endocrine.org/topics/edc/what-edcs-are/common-edcs]
• 23. Inventory of possible endocrine disrupting chemicals used in cosmetic products - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40931777/]
• 24. Acknowledging Receipts? New Evidence for Dermal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7137915/]
• 25. Dermal uptake: An important pathway of human exposure ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749122006923]
• 26. Endocrine disrupting chemicals in the atmosphere [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160412014003699]
• 27. Identification of combinations of endocrine disrupting ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147651322005176]
• 28. Molecular mechanism(s) of endocrine-disrupting chemicals ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3823132/]
• 29. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and epigenetic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12223400/]
• 30. Impact of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) on ... [https://rbej.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12958-025-01413-z]
• 31. Molecular Mechanism of Action of Endocrine-Disrupting ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11641576/]
• 32. Exploring the Mechanisms of EDCs-Induced Metabolic ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S3050620425000363]
• 33. Role of endocrine disrupting chemicals in children's ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121011853]
• 34. Early Life Exposure to Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5322271/]
• 35. Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals' (EDCs) Effects on Tumour ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7729595/]
• 36. Latest Science Shows Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in ... [https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2024/latest-science-shows-endocrine-disrupting-chemicals-in-pose-health-threats-globally]
• 37. Impact of EDCs on Hormone-Sensitive Cancer [https://www.endocrine.org/topics/edc/what-edcs-are/common-edcs/cancer]
• 38. Impact of EDCs on Neurological and Behavioral Systems [https://www.endocrine.org/topics/edc/what-edcs-are/common-edcs/neurological]
• 39. EDC EU Newsletter | October 2025 [https://www.endocrine.org/advocacy/priorities-and-positions/edc/edc-newsletters/issue-7]
• 40. Analytical Methodologies for the Determination of Endocrine ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3662172/]
• 41. Analytical methods for the determination of endocrine ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0039914021005634]
• 42. The Difference Between GC / MS and LC / MS Systems [https://conquerscientific.com/the-difference-between-gc-ms-and-lc-ms-systems/]
• 43. Monitoring Pharmaceuticals and Personal in Drinking... Care Products [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10421426/]
• 44. Optimization and Application of a GC-MS Method for the ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2297-8739/5/2/33]
• 45. Analysis of Endocrine Disrupting Pesticides by Capillary GC ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3499860/]
• 46. Agilent Introduces Advanced LC - MS and Miniaturized GC - MS ... [https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/agilent-introduces-advanced-lc-ms-and-miniaturized-gc-ms-technologies-at-asms-2025]
• 47. Potential effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147651325010462]
• 48. Miniaturized solid-phase microextraction coupled with gas ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9156867/]
• 49. Green Approaches to Sample Preparation Based on ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7180442/]
• 50. Green Extraction Techniques as Advanced Sample ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/27/9/2953]
• 51. Greenness assessment of microextraction techniques in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11216521/]
• 52. Green and Emerging Microextraction Strategies for ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/30/22/4471]
• 53. Solventless Microextration Techniques for Pharmaceutical Analysis... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8792605/]
• 54. Assessment of Endocrine-Disrupting Properties in ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9284/12/4/175]
• 55. Validation and Use of an Accurate, Sensitive Method for ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/10/5/1040]
• 56. Hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3249561/]
• 57. Application of HILIC methods in pharmaceutical analysis [https://amsbiopharma.com/application-of-hilic-in-pharmaceutical-analysis/]
• 58. Recent advances and current challenges in hydrophilic ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165993624002413]
• 59. What do people need to know about endocrine disrupting ... [https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-025-25561-4]
• 60. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals exposure: cardiometabolic ... [https://cardiab.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12933-025-02938-8]
• 61. Evaluating personal care product use by Environmental ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-025-00751-9]
• 62. Bio-monitoring of endocrine disrupting chemicals in human ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40337983/]
• 63. Biomonitoring, dietary predictors, drinking water ingestion ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412025004763]
• 64. Human biological monitoring of suspected endocrine ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3901881/]
• 65. Environmental Endocrine-Disrupting Chemical Exposure [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.553850/full]
• 66. High Throughput Screening Market Forecast, 2025-2032 [https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/industry-reports/high-throughput-screening-market]
• 67. High-throughput Screening Market Size & Share Analysis [https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/high-throughput-screening-market]
• 68. 332. Examples of scientific data visualization with ... [https://medium.com/@ilakk2023/examples-of-scientific-data-visualization-with-quantitative-components-77ec53b7ce43]
• 69. Cosmetics Industry Regulatory Challenges Accelerate [https://www.bakerbotts.com/thought-leadership/publications/2025/november/cosmetics-industry-regulatory-challenges-accelerate]
• 70. Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) [https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations/modernization-cosmetics-regulation-act-2022-mocra]
• 71. MoCRA Implementation: FDA Spring 2025 Unified Agenda ... [https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/2025/09/mocra-implementation-fda-spring-2025-unified-agenda-update]
• 72. FDA Announces Updated Timelines for Key Cosmetic ... [https://focalpointresearch.net/fda/fda-announces-updated-timelines-for-key-cosmetic-regulations/]
• 73. EPA Proposes Major Changes to TSCA § 8(a)(7) PFAS ... [https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2025/11/epa-proposes-major-changes-to-tsca]
• 74. EPA Proposes Major Shift in TSCA PFAS Reporting Policy [https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/11/epa-proposes-major-shift-in-tsca-pfas-reporting-policy]
• 75. Update on the Status of TSCA Health and Safety Reporting ... [https://www.epa.gov/chemicals-under-tsca/update-status-tsca-health-and-safety-reporting-rule]
• 76. EU Microplastics Restriction: First Key Deadline on Oct 17, ... [http://en.reach24h.com/news/insights/chemical/eu-microplastics-spm-restriction-deadline]
• 77. Microplastics restrictions in the EU [https://www.enhesa.com/resources/article/microplastics-restrictions-in-the-eu/]
• 78. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2055 - Restriction of ... [https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/chemicals/reach/restrictions/commission-regulation-eu-20232055-restriction-microplastics-intentionally-added-products_en]
• 79. Reducing Exposures to Endocrine Disruptors (REED) study, a ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11587698/]
• 80. Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Cosmetics [https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas-cosmetics]
• 81. Avoiding endocrine disruptors in furniture, carpets, clothes ... [https://chemtrust.org/furniture/]
• 82. Alternative strategies for preservative use in cosmetics and ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33221305/]
• 83. Exposure Assessment Tools by Media - Consumer Products [https://www.epa.gov/expobox/exposure-assessment-tools-media-consumer-products]
• 84. The Truth About Parabens Part 2 [https://www.beenaturals.com/blogs/beenaturals-blog/the-truth-about-parabens-part-2-parabens-versus-alternatives-how-do-they-compare?srsltid=AfmBOoq_gJ5AP-UDapr89Bt2ntGq9Ydezf-eyZSQBKRjxhB2r2apyXx3]
• 85. Alternatives to Parabens that are Safe [https://www.epilynx.com/blogs/news/alternatives-to-parabens-and-why-they-are-great-and-save?srsltid=AfmBOoqFxPhWBZAi2W1Io-cgQkGM7JKjvxWM6kypcqPU0f2dnLnCuQnR]
• 86. Environmental Endocrine-Disrupting Chemical Exposure [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7541969/]
• 87. Occurrence and ecological risks of endocrine-disrupting ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590182625001304]
• 88. 7 Cosmetics and Personal Care Compliance Challenges in ... [https://www.getsignify.com/blog/cosmetics-and-personal-care-compliance]
• 89. Strategies for supply chain disruption management [https://www.sap.com/bulgaria/resources/supply-chain-disruption-10-tips]
• 90. The Biggest Global Supply Chain Risks of 2025 [https://www.xeneta.com/blog/the-biggest-global-supply-chain-risks-of-2025]
• 91. Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) [https://www.endocrine.org/patient-engagement/endocrine-library/edcs]
• 92. A New Era of Cosmetics Safety Regulation [https://www.theregreview.org/2025/06/28/seminar-a-new-era-of-cosmetics-safety-regulation/]
• 93. FDA Authority Over Cosmetics [https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations/fda-authority-over-cosmetics-how-cosmetics-are-not-fda-approved-are-fda-regulated]
• 94. Cosmetics Labeling Guide [https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-labeling-regulations/cosmetics-labeling-guide]
• 95. Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7098080/]
• 96. MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event ... [https://www.fda.gov/safety/medwatch-fda-safety-information-and-adverse-event-reporting-program]
• 97. How to Report Medical Device Problems [https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/medical-device-safety/medical-device-reporting-mdr-how-report-medical-device-problems]
• 98. Comprehensive safety analysis of adverse events ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-09490-1]
• 99. Recent Advances In Green Chromatography Techniques ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772391725000830]
• 100. Bio-based Solvents [https://chemistryforsustainability.org/safer-alternatives/bio-based-solvents]
• 101. Sustainable materials for sorptive extraction techniques [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165993625003541]
• 102. Top 6 Visualizations for Quantitative Data Analysis Methods [https://chartexpo.com/blog/quantitative-data-analysis-methods]
• 103. How to choose colors for data visualizations [https://www.atlassian.com/data/charts/how-to-choose-colors-data-visualization]
• 104. Analyze, Visualize, Interpret Departmental Data [https://ep3guide.org/analyze-visualize-interpret-departmental-data/]
• 105. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals: economic, regulatory, and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7437819/]
• 106. Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union [https://www.endocrine.org/advocacy/position-statements/endocrine-disrupting-chemicals-in-the-european-union]
• 107. Identification of biomarkers and outcomes of endocrine ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X23000100]
• 108. Endocrine Disruptors in Cosmetic Products and the ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9284/10/6/160]
• 109. Scientific and Regulatory Perspectives on Chemical Risk ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12565433/]
• 110. The journey to risk assessment modernization in Canada [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935121015267]
• 111. Effects of global treaties on commercial chemicals widely ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542519625001147]
• 112. Temporal Evaluation of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5526086/]
• 113. Global human exposure of atmospheric polybrominated ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024008353]
• 114. Paraben [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraben]
• 115. Parabens in Cosmetics [https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/parabens-cosmetics]
• 116. Urinary Concentrations of Four Parabens in the U.S. ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2866685/]
• 117. Occurrence of parabens in outdoor environments [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749121006400]
• 118. Blue applicability grade index (BAGI) and software: a new tool ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2023/gc/d3gc02347h]
• 119. Assessing the Environmental Impact of Analytical Methods [https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/the-green-component-assessing-the-environmental-impact-of-analytical-methods]
• 120. Modified GAPI (MoGAPI) Tool and Software for the ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4532/5/3/30]
• 121. BAGI-assessed green GC-MS method for rapid analysis of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-25388-4]
• 122. GHS Classification (Rev.11, 2025) Summary - PubChem [https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ghs/]
• 123. UN GHS Revision 11 Released: Key Updates You Need to ... [http://en.reach24h.com/news/insights/chemical/un-ghs-revision-11]
• 124. 2025 Personal Care Regulations: Key Changes & Strategies [https://chemquestint.com/navigating-2025-regulatory-trends-in-the-personal-care-industry/]
• 125. Sensor technologies for the detection and monitoring of ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1141523/full]
• 126. Analytical methods and biomonitoring results in hair for the ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38417485/]
• 127. Critical Perfume and Cosmetics Regulation Trends in 2025 [https://weitnauer.com/perfume-and-cosmetics-market-regulation-2025]