Validating Non-Invasive Biomonitoring Methods for EDC Exposure: Advances in Hair, Urine, and Semen Analysis

Abstract

The accurate assessment of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is critical for understanding their role in human health disorders, including infertility, metabolic syndrome, and neurodevelopmental issues. This article provides a comprehensive review of the development and validation of non-invasive biomonitoring methods, analyzing innovative approaches in matrices such as hair, urine, and semen. We explore foundational principles, detail methodological applications of techniques like QuEChERS and SALLE coupled with LC-MS/MS, address key troubleshooting and optimization challenges, and present rigorous validation frameworks. Aimed at researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, this synthesis of current evidence and methodologies aims to standardize practices and enhance the reliability of EDC exposure data for robust epidemiological and clinical research.

The Critical Need for Non-Invasive EDC Biomonitoring: Principles and Matrices

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), such as bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates, and their structural analogues, represent a significant challenge for exposure science due to their unique toxicological properties and ubiquitous presence in consumer products. Unlike traditional toxicants, EDCs exhibit low-dose effects, non-monotonic dose-response curves, and rapid metabolism, disobeying traditional "the dose makes the poison" paradigm of toxicology [1]. These properties necessitate sophisticated biomonitoring approaches that can capture transient exposure windows and subtle biological effects, particularly during critical developmental periods such as prenatal development, infancy, and puberty [2] [1].

The assessment of EDC exposure is further complicated by the fact that these chemicals are quickly metabolized and excreted, with estimated half-lives on the order of hours to days [3] [1]. This rapid metabolism creates substantial temporal variability in biomarker measurements and means that exposure is often constant rather than isolated [1]. Additionally, the metabolites of these chemicals are frequently the true toxic agents, requiring analytical methods that can identify and quantify these transformation products [1]. Within-person variability of urinary phthalate metabolites and bisphenol analogues can span 2-3 orders of magnitude, creating significant challenges for exposure classification in biomonitoring studies [3].

The Case for Non-Invasive Biomonitoring Matrices

Limitations of Traditional Matrices

Blood and urine have historically been the primary matrices for human biomonitoring studies, but each presents significant limitations for EDC assessment. While urine collection is considered minimally invasive, it introduces substantial analytical challenges due to large intra-individual variabilities depending on sampling time-point and hydration status [3]. Blood collection presents greater participant burden and ethical concerns, particularly in vulnerable populations such as children and pregnant women.

Advantages of Alternative Non-Invasive Matrices

Non-invasive matrices beyond urine address critical gaps in EDC exposure assessment, particularly for specialized research applications and vulnerable populations. These alternative approaches provide access to cumulative exposure biomarkers and enable sampling in populations where traditional methods are impractical or unethical.

Table 1: Comparison of Non-Invasive Biomonitoring Matrices for EDC Assessment

Matrix	Key Applications	Advantages	Limitations
Human Milk	Lactational exposure assessment in infants	Provides exposure data for breastfeeding infants; represents lipid-soluble EDCs	Limited to lactating women; ethical concerns
Hair & Fingernails	Long-term exposure assessment	Cumulative exposure measure over weeks to months; simple storage	Potential for external contamination
Exhaled Breath	Volatile organic compound exposure	Real-time exposure assessment; completely non-invasive	Limited to volatile compounds; analytical challenges
Deciduous Teeth	Prenatal and early childhood exposure	Retrospective exposure timing during critical developmental windows	Limited availability; destructive analysis required
Meconium	Prenatal exposure assessment	Cumulative measure of fetal exposure	Single sampling opportunity; complex analysis

These non-invasive matrices are particularly valuable for: (1) characterizing exposure and health risk in vulnerable populations, (2) conducting cumulative risk assessments that aggregate exposures from multiple sources and routes, and (3) implementing community-based risk assessments where more invasive sampling would reduce participation [4]. For example, analysis of deciduous teeth can provide a retrospective timeline of exposure during critical developmental windows, while hair and nails can integrate exposure over weeks to months, overcoming the rapid fluctuation issues associated with spot urine samples for rapidly-metabolized EDCs [4].

Analytical Methodologies for Non-Invasive EDC Assessment

Advanced Separation and Detection Techniques

The complex nature of EDCs and their metabolites in non-invasive matrices demands sophisticated analytical approaches with high sensitivity and specificity. The selection of methodology depends on the target analytes, required sensitivity, and the specific matrix being analyzed.

Table 2: Analytical Techniques for EDC Assessment in Non-Invasive Matrices

Analytical Technique	Application in EDC Analysis	Sensitivity	Key Advantages
UHPLC-HRMS (Ultra-High Performance Liquid Chromatography-High Resolution Mass Spectrometry)	Untargeted screening of steroid metabolites in urine [5]	Detection limits <0.01 ng μL⁻¹ for 45/56 steroids [5]	Broad compound screening without prior knowledge of metabolites
LC-MS/MS (Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry)	Targeted analysis of phthalate metabolites and bisphenol analogues [3]	Varies by analyte; generally low ng/mL range [3]	High specificity for known metabolites; quantitative precision
GC-MS (Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry)	Analysis of bisphenols and analogues in food/food contact materials [6]	Superior efficiency compared to LC for certain analytes [6]	Enhanced sensitivity for volatile compounds; lower matrix effects
Immunoassays	Traditional endocrine monitoring	Moderate	Rapid analysis; lower equipment costs

Comprehensive Steroidomics Workflow

The development of versatile steroidomics methods represents a significant advancement for wildlife and human biomonitoring. One validated approach using UHPLC-HRMS enables (un)targeted screening of a wide range of sex and stress steroids and related molecules in urine [5]. This method can uniquely detect 50 steroids (conjugated and non-conjugated androgens, estrogens, progestogens and glucocorticoids) and 6 prostaglandins, with 45 out of 56 compounds demonstrating detection limits below 0.01 ng μL⁻¹ [5]. The method exhibits excellent linearity (R² > 0.99), precision (CV < 20%), and recovery (80-120%) for the majority of compounds, making it particularly suitable for detecting subtle endocrine disruptions caused by EDC exposures [5].

Diagram 1: Analytical workflow for non-invasive EDC biomonitoring. This workflow illustrates the comprehensive process from sample collection to biological interpretation, highlighting the multiple stages where methodological rigor is essential for reliable EDC exposure assessment.

Study Design Considerations for Reliable EDC Biomonitoring

Temporal Variability and Sampling Strategies

The inherent variability in EDC exposure necessitates careful study design to accurately capture exposure profiles. Research on urinary phthalate metabolites and bisphenol analogues has demonstrated that within-person variability often exceeds between-person variability for many EDCs [3]. This variability is influenced by the specific chemical properties and exposure sources:

• Compounds with common exposure sources (e.g., BPA and secondary DEHP metabolites from dietary exposure) typically show lower intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), making them more suitable for comparative population studies like case-control designs [3].
• Compounds with distinct exposure sources (e.g., MEP and MBzP from cosmetics and personal care products) demonstrate higher ICCs due to consistent individual use patterns [3].
• First morning void (FMV) samples generally provide better representation of daily exposure compared to random spot samples, but may still not fully capture the exposure profile for all EDCs [3].

Statistical Approaches for Complex EDC Data

The analysis of EDC biomonitoring data presents unique statistical challenges due to repeated measures, values below detection limits, and right-skewed distributions. specialized statistical tools like the marlod R package have been developed to address these challenges through marginal modeling approaches that can handle left-censored data (values below the limit of detection) and repeated measurements [7]. These methods are particularly important for EDC studies where detection frequencies can vary considerably between metabolites and studies.

Diagram 2: Key considerations for EDC biomonitoring study design. This diagram outlines the three critical domains that must be addressed in EDC biomonitoring studies: population and sampling strategy, analytical method selection, and appropriate statistical approaches for handling complex exposure data.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions for EDC Biomonitoring

Successful implementation of non-invasive EDC biomonitoring requires specialized reagents and materials tailored to the unique challenges of these analyses. The following table details key research reagent solutions and their specific functions in EDC exposure assessment.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Non-Invasive EDC Biomonitoring

Reagent/Material	Function in EDC Analysis	Application Examples	Critical Specifications
Stable Isotope-Labeled Internal Standards	Correction for matrix effects and recovery variations during extraction	Quantification of phthalate metabolites and bisphenol analogues in urine [3]	Isotopic purity; structural analogy to target analytes
Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE) Cartridges	Pre-concentration and cleanup of samples prior to analysis	Extraction of steroid hormones from urine [5]	Selectivity for target compound classes; low background contamination
Enzymatic Hydrolysis Reagents	Deconjugation of phase II metabolites to free forms for analysis	Conversion of glucuronidated phthalate metabolites to free forms [3]	Specificity (β-glucuronidase/sulfatase); complete hydrolysis efficiency
Derivatization Reagents	Enhancement of volatility and detection sensitivity for GC-MS	Silylation of bisphenols for improved GC separation and sensitivity [6]	Complete reaction yield; stability of derivatives
Ultra-Pure Solvents	Sample preparation and mobile phase composition	LC-MS/MS mobile phases; sample extraction [5] [3]	LC-MS grade purity; minimal background interference
Quality Control Materials	Method validation and batch-to-batch quality assurance	Certified reference materials; in-house pooled quality control samples [5]	Commutability with real samples; characterized target values

Non-invasive biomonitoring methods provide essential tools for addressing the unique challenges of EDC exposure assessment, particularly for vulnerable populations and cumulative risk assessments. The continued development and validation of these approaches requires interdisciplinary collaboration between analytical chemists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and toxicologists. As methodological advancements improve sensitivity and expand the range of measurable biomarkers, non-invasive methods will play an increasingly critical role in understanding the complex relationships between EDC exposure and health outcomes across the lifespan.

Future directions should focus on: (1) establishing standardized protocols for sample collection, storage, and analysis; (2) improving analytical sensitivity to detect low-level exposures during critical windows; (3) developing interpretive frameworks for translating biomarker concentrations into health risk assessments; and (4) validating novel matrices that can provide cumulative exposure measures for EDCs with short physiological half-lives. Through these advancements, non-invasive biomonitoring will continue to enhance our understanding of EDC exposure and its impact on human health.

Biomonitoring is an essential tool for assessing human exposure to Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs), which are linked to adverse health effects including reproductive disorders, hormone-dependent cancers, and neurodevelopmental issues [8]. Traditional matrices like blood and urine have limitations: blood sampling is invasive, and urine often only reflects recent exposure due to the short half-lives of many EDCs [9]. This has driven research into alternative, non-invasive matrices such as hair, nails, and semen. These keratin-rich tissues offer a longer window of detection and accumulate contaminants over time, providing a unique perspective on chronic and past exposure [10] [9]. This guide objectively compares the performance of these emerging matrices, providing experimental data and methodologies to aid researchers in selecting appropriate tools for EDC exposure assessment.

Comparative Analysis of Biomoni toring Matrices

The table below summarizes the key characteristics of hair, nail, and semen matrices compared to traditional blood and urine for EDC biomonitoring.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Biomonitoring Matrices for EDC Assessment

Matrix	Primary Analytes	Detection Window	Sample Collection	Key Advantages	Major Limitations
Hair	PBDEs, PCBs, PFAS, Pesticides, Phthalates, BPA [11] [9] [8]	Months to years (approx. 1 cm/month growth) [12]	Non-invasive, simple, stable at room temperature [9]	Long-term exposure record, ease of storage/transport, segmental analysis for timeline [9] [12]	Potential for external contamination, effects of cosmetic treatments [9] [12]
Nail	Heavy Metals (As, Cd, Hg, Pb), BFRs, OPEs, metabolite biomarkers [10] [13]	5-14 months (long-term record) [10]	Non-invasive, easy storage/transport, very stable [10]	Very stable matrix, difficult to adulterate, reflects internal exposure via metabolites [10] [12]	Limited sample quantity, slower incorporation of substances [10] [12]
Semen	EDCs assessed in exposome studies (e.g., PCBs, PBDEs, phthalates) [14]	Weeks (reflects recent exposure affecting spermatogenesis)	Invasive, requires clinical setting, sample processing needed	Directly relevant for male reproductive toxicity studies [14]	Complex matrix, invasive collection, not for general population screening
Blood	Persistent EDCs (PCBs, OCPs, PFAS), non-persistent EDCs [14] [8]	Hours to days (non-persistent); Years (persistent) [8]	Invasive, requires trained phlebotomist, specific storage	Gold standard for internal dose of persistent chemicals, precise for recent exposure [12] [8]	Invasive, unsuitable for some populations, not ideal for non-persistent chemicals [9]
Urine	Non-persistent EDCs (BPA, phthalates, parabens) and metabolites [14] [8]	Hours to days (spot urine) [9]	Non-invasive, large volumes available	Ideal for non-persistent chemicals and metabolism studies	High variability, requires multiple samples for chronic exposure [9]

Table 2: Exemplary Biomonitoring Data in Alternative Matrices

Matrix	EDC / Pollutant	Study Population	Reported Concentration	Key Finding / Correlation
Hair	Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs)	Manufacturing Workers	Up to 2.20 × 10⁶ ng/g [10]	Demonstrates significant occupational exposure differences.
		General Population	~67 ng/g [10]
Nail	Triphenyl Phosphate (Organophosphate Ester)	General Population (China)	19.6 ng/g [10]	Highlights substantial regional variation in exposure levels.
		General Population (USA)	770 ng/g [10]
Nail	Arsenic (As) & Mercury (Hg)	European Otters (Wildlife Model)	Positive correlation between hair and internal organs [13]	Validates nail/hair as a proxy for internal body burden.
Hair/Serum	PBDEs (e.g., BDE-28)	E-waste Recycling Workers	Correlation observed [11]	Supports use of hair for biomonitoring source apportionment.

Experimental Protocols for Method Validation

Hair Analysis Workflow

The analysis of EDCs in hair requires a meticulous protocol to ensure reliable results.

• Step 1: Sample Collection and Preparation: Approximately 100-200 mg of hair is cut closely from the posterior vertex region of the scalp, as recommended by the Society of Hair Testing. The sample is then cut into small segments (e.g., 1-cm for monthly resolution) or ground into a fine powder to increase surface area for extraction [9].
• Step 2: Decontamination and Extraction: Hair samples undergo a series of washes (e.g., with water, acetone, and methanol) to remove external contaminants and sebum. The target analytes are then extracted from the matrix using techniques like liquid-liquid extraction or solid-phase extraction [9].
• Step 3: Instrumental Analysis: Liquid or Gas Chromatography coupled with tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS or GC-MS/MS) is the most common technique for quantifying organic EDCs in hair. These methods provide the high sensitivity and selectivity required to detect low concentrations of EDCs in complex biological matrices [9].
• Step 4: Analytical Validation: The method must be validated by assessing parameters such as accuracy, precision, recovery, linearity, and limits of detection (LOD). This process ensures the assay generates reproducible and accurate data, which is a cornerstone of biomarker development [15] [16].

Statistical Considerations in Exposome Studies

When analyzing multiple EDCs, as in an Exposome-Wide Association Study (EWAS), statistical power is a critical concern. A seminal study investigating 128 EDCs against semen quality endpoints found that existing cohorts with hundreds of participants are grossly underpowered [14]. Their post-hoc power analysis revealed that EWAS research in male fertility requires a mean sample size of approximately 2,696 men (range: 1,795 - 3,625) to attain a power of 0.8 for detecting modest associations, whereas the average size of four published studies was only 201 men [14]. This underscores the necessity for large, collaborative studies or merged cohorts to reliably detect signals from complex EDC mixtures.

The Biomarker Validation Pathway

The journey of a biomarker from discovery to clinical use is long and must be systematically validated. The pathway distinguishes between analytical validation (assessing the performance of the assay itself) and clinical qualification (the evidentiary process of linking a biomarker with biological processes and clinical endpoints) [16].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Reagents and Materials for EDC Analysis in Alternative Matrices

Item	Function / Application
LC-MS/MS Grade Solvents	Used for sample decontamination, extraction, and mobile phases; essential for high-sensitivity detection and minimizing background noise. [9]
Solid-Phase Extraction Cartridges	Clean-up and pre-concentration of target EDCs from complex sample extracts prior to instrumental analysis. [9]
Certified Reference Materials	Calibrate instruments and validate analytical methods against a known standard to ensure accuracy and reliability.
Stable Isotope-Labeled Internal Standards	Account for matrix effects and efficiency losses during sample preparation, improving quantitative accuracy. [9]
High-Performance Liquid Chromatograph	Paired with a tandem mass spectrometer (LC-MS/MS), this is the core instrument for separating and quantifying EDCs. [9]
Eucoriol	Eucoriol | High-Purity Reference Standard | RUO
Hexyl valerate	Hexyl Valerate | High-Purity Ester for Research

Hair and nails have firmly established themselves as valuable non-invasive tools for assessing chronic human exposure to a broad spectrum of EDCs and toxic pollutants. Their long detection windows, stability, and ease of collection address significant limitations of blood and urine. Semen analysis provides direct insight into reproductive toxicity. However, challenges remain, including the need to better differentiate between internal and external contamination in hair and nails, and the requirement for larger cohort studies to power exposomic research. Continued method standardization and larger validation studies are paramount to fully realize the potential of these matrices in public health biomonitoring and regulatory science.

Advantages of Hair Analysis for Retrospective and Long-Term Exposure Assessment

In the evolving field of exposure science, accurately assessing long-term and retrospective contact with environmental contaminants, particularly endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), remains a significant challenge. While traditional biomonitoring using blood and urine provides acute exposure data, its utility is limited for chronic exposure assessment due to the rapid elimination of many toxic substances from the body. This comprehensive analysis examines hair as a superior biological matrix for retrospective and long-term exposure assessment, highlighting its unique advantages through comparative data, methodological protocols, and visualization of its place within the exposure science toolkit.

The total environmental exposure, or exposome, encompasses all environmental insults an individual encounters from gestation throughout life [17]. Assessing this exposure is crucial for understanding the etiology of chronic diseases. However, a significant methodological gap exists in capturing long-term exposure to pollutants with short biological half-lives.

Traditional biomatrices like blood and urine offer real-time snapshots of physiological activity but are inadequate for chronic exposure assessment because many substances are rapidly metabolized and eliminated [18]. For EDCs such as bisphenols and phthalates, which are cleared within hours, single-point urine or blood measurements can miss intermittent or low-dose exposures, leading to underestimation of health risks [19] [9]. Hair analysis emerges as a powerful complementary approach that overcomes these limitations by providing an integrated record of exposure over time, reflecting the cumulative burden of environmental contaminants [20] [18].

Fundamental Advantages of Hair as a Biomatrix

Hair possesses unique biological and structural properties that make it exceptionally suitable for retrospective exposure assessment. As hair grows at approximately 1 cm per month, it incorporates substances from the bloodstream into its keratin structure during formation, creating a temporal record of exposure [20] [18]. This process results in a chronological archive of physiological changes and exposures that can span weeks to months, depending on hair length [18].

The practical benefits of hair collection are substantial:

• Non-invasive sampling: Unlike blood draws, hair collection is painless and requires no specialized medical personnel [18] [9].
• Easy storage and transport: Hair remains stable at room temperature without refrigeration and poses minimal infection risk [9].
• Retrospective analysis: Hair preserves a record of exposures long after contaminants have cleared from blood and urine [21].

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of Hair Versus Traditional Biomatrices

Characteristic	Hair	Blood	Urine
Temporal Window	Weeks to months	Hours to days	Hours to days
Sampling Method	Non-invasive	Invasive (venipuncture)	Moderate invasion
Sample Stability	High (room temperature)	Low (requires refrigeration)	Moderate (may require preservatives)
Detection of Chronic Exposure	Excellent	Poor	Poor
Risk of Sample Degradation	Low	High	Moderate

Comparative Analytical Performance

Quantitative Comparison with Traditional Matrices

Hair analysis demonstrates distinct advantages for assessing exposure to rapidly metabolized compounds. Research on plasticizers like diisononyl phthalate (DINP) reveals that hair analysis effectively captures long-term exposure patterns that single-point urine measurements may miss [22].

Table 2: Analytical Performance of Hair Versus Urine for Phthalate Exposure Assessment

Performance Metric	Hair Analysis	Urine Analysis
Correlation with Administered Dose	Strong positive correlation (p<0.05)	Variable correlation
Detection Window	Several months	24-48 hours
Metabolite Saturation Point	Later saturation	Earlier saturation
Temporal Resolution	Segmental analysis possible (monthly)	Single time point
Correlation Between Matrices	Significant positive correlation (r=0.74-0.86, p<0.05)	Significant positive correlation (r=0.74-0.86, p<0.05)

Application to Different Pollutant Classes

Hair analysis has proven effective for diverse contaminant classes. A 2023 study exposed rats to 17 different pollutants, including pesticides, phthalates, and bisphenols. The results showed strong correlations between ingestion doses and metabolite concentrations in hair for 14 of the 17 substances, demonstrating hair's capacity to reflect true internal exposure for most chemicals [19].

For heavy metals, hair provides an integrated measure of exposure that correlates with chronic health effects. Unlike blood, which only reveals recent exposure, hair can identify cumulative exposure over months, making it particularly valuable for assessing neurotoxic metals like lead and mercury [18] [23].

Methodological Framework for Hair Analysis

Standardized Protocol for Hair Collection and Preparation

The Society of Hair Testing has established recommendations to ensure analytical reliability:

• Sample Collection: Approximately 100 mg of hair is cut from the posterior vertex region of the scalp as this area shows most consistent growth rates. Hair should be cut as close to the scalp as possible [9].
• Storage Conditions: Samples are stored in dark conditions at room temperature in aluminum foil or paper envelopes to prevent photodegradation [9].
• Sample Preparation: Two primary approaches are used:
  • Cutting hair into small segments (1-2 cm) for segmental analysis
  • Grinding hair to a fine powder for homogeneous analysis [9]
• Decontamination: Sequential washes with appropriate solvents (e.g., methanol, dichloromethane, water) remove external contaminants without extracting incorporated analytes [9].

The experimental workflow below illustrates the complete process from collection to data analysis:

Analytical Techniques and Instrumentation

Advanced analytical platforms enable precise quantification of contaminants in hair at trace levels:

• Liquid/Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC/GC-MS/MS): The gold standard for organic compound quantification (e.g., EDCs, pharmaceuticals) [20] [9].
• Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS): Preferred for elemental analysis (heavy metals, essential minerals) with exceptional sensitivity [23].
• Synchrotron Radiation X-ray Analysis: Provides structural information about hair composition changes associated with diseases [20].
• Fourier-Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy: Detects biochemical alterations in hair structure indicative of systemic conditions [20].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Successful implementation of hair analysis requires specific research reagents and materials:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Hair Analysis

Item	Function/Application	Examples/Specifications
LC-MS/MS Systems	Quantification of organic pollutants	Triple quadrupole mass analyzers
ICP-MS	Detection of trace elements and metals	High-sensitivity configuration
Reference Materials	Quality control and method validation	Certified reference materials for hair matrix
Specialized Solvents	Decontamination and extraction	HPLC-grade methanol, acetone, water
Hair Sampling Kits	Standardized collection	Scalp-close scissors, paper envelopes, documentation
Grinding Equipment	Sample homogenization	Cryogenic mills for brittle fracture
Cyclododecyne	Cyclododecyne | Alkyne Reagent for Research	High-purity Cyclododecyne for bioorthogonal chemistry & materials science research. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.
Rhodocene	Rhodocene | Organometallic Reagent | RUO	Rhodocene: A key organorhodium sandwich complex for catalysis & materials science research. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.

Incorporation Pathways and Analytical Validation

Mechanisms of Analyte Incorporation

Understanding how substances incorporate into hair is crucial for data interpretation. The multicompartment model below illustrates the primary pathways:

Substances enter hair through three primary routes: (1) passive diffusion from blood during hair formation in the follicle; (2) incorporation via sweat and sebum after formation; and (3) external environmental deposition [20]. This multicompartment model explains why hair analysis reflects both internal dose and potential external contamination, necessitating careful decontamination protocols [20] [9].

Validation Through Experimental Models

Animal studies provide critical validation of hair analysis for exposure assessment. Research demonstrated that DINP metabolites in rat hair showed significant positive correlations with administered doses and with urinary metabolite levels (r=0.74-0.86, p<0.05) [22]. Importantly, metabolite levels in urine showed earlier saturation than in hair, indicating hair's superior capacity to reflect exposure gradients at higher concentration ranges [22].

For EDCs with short half-lives, hair analysis solves the problem of rapidly fluctuating concentrations in traditional matrices. A comprehensive review of analytical methods for EDCs in hair confirmed its utility for compounds including bisphenols, phthalates, parabens, and benzophenones, where it provides a integrated measure of exposure unaffected by short-term metabolic variations [9].

Hair analysis represents a transformative approach in exposure science, addressing critical limitations of traditional biomonitoring methods. Its capacity to provide a temporal record of exposure, combined with practical advantages in sampling, storage, and stability, positions it as an indispensable tool for assessing long-term and retrospective exposure to environmental contaminants. As analytical technologies advance and standardized protocols gain wider adoption, hair analysis is poised to play an increasingly central role in environmental epidemiology, toxicology, and public health research, particularly for understanding the chronic effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on human health.

For researchers designing exposure assessment studies, incorporating hair analysis alongside traditional matrices provides a more comprehensive understanding of both acute and chronic exposure patterns, ultimately strengthening the evidence base for environmental health risk assessment and policy development.

Semen as a Biologically Relevant Matrix for Assessing Male Reproductive Health Impacts

Semen represents a critical, yet underutilized, non-invasive matrix for assessing the impacts of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) on male reproductive health. Unlike blood or urine, semen provides direct access to the male reproductive system, containing not only spermatozoa but also rich molecular information from the testicles, epididymides, and accessory sex glands [24]. The validation of non-invasive biomonitoring methods is paramount in exposure science, which seeks to capture the totality of environmental exposures across a lifetime. Semen offers a unique window into reproductive toxicology, as it contains the highest concentration of molecules from the male reproductive glands and can reveal direct effects on fertility potential [24].

The exposome concept—encompassing all environmental exposures from prenatal life onward—has highlighted significant gaps in our understanding of how EDCs impact male fertility [25]. Semen analysis transcends traditional diagnostic approaches by providing both functional parameters (sperm count, motility, morphology) and molecular biomarkers (proteins, DNA, RNA, metabolites) that can be correlated with specific EDC exposures [24]. This dual capability makes semen an invaluable matrix for connecting environmental exposures to physiological outcomes in male reproductive health.

Comparative Analysis of Biological Matrices for EDC Biomoni

Matrix	Key Advantages	Limitations	Primary EDCs Detected	Detection Methods	Correlation with Reproductive Outcomes
Semen	Direct access to reproductive system; Contains spermatozoa & seminal plasma; Can assess functional & molecular damage	Sample collection challenges; Cultural & psychological barriers; Requires specialized processing	Phthalates, Bisphenol A, Parabens, PCBs, Pesticides [26] [27]	LC-MS/MS, GC-MS, Sperm chromatin structure assay, TUNEL, FISH [24] [27]	Direct correlation with sperm parameters, DNA fragmentation, fertilization capacity [24]
Urine	Non-invasive; Large volumes available; Well-established protocols	Short elimination half-lives; Reflects recent exposure; Indirect relationship to reproductive tissue	Phthalate metabolites, Bisphenols, Parabens, Pesticide metabolites [25] [27]	LC-MS/MS, GC-MS, Immunoassays [25] [28]	Moderate correlation; Associated with semen parameter alterations [27]
Blood	Represents systemic exposure; Allows concentration quantitation	Invasive collection; Weak correlation with reproductive tissue concentrations; Limited for lipophilic compounds	PFAS, PCBs, Organochlorine pesticides, Heavy metals [4] [28]	LC-MS/MS, GC-MS, ICP-MS [28]	Weak direct correlation with semen quality; Better for systemic exposure assessment [4]
Hair	Cumulative exposure assessment (weeks to months); Non-invasive	External contamination concerns; Limited for volatile compounds; Not standardized for EDCs	Heavy metals, Certain persistent pesticides, PFAS (emerging) [4]	ICP-MS, LC-MS/MS [4]	Limited data on correlation with reproductive outcomes [4]

Semen Biomarkers: From Conventional Parameters to Novel Omics

Conventional Semen Parameters and Their Clinical Utility

The assessment of male reproductive health has historically relied on conventional semen parameters, with reference values undergoing significant revisions over time, reflecting declining sperm counts in the general population [26]:

• Sperm Concentration and Count: Multiple studies have demonstrated declining sperm counts globally, with one analysis showing a 1.5% per year decrease in the U.S. from 1938-1988 and 3.1% per year in Europe from 1971-1990 [26]. These parameters show the most consistent correlation with fertility potential [24].

• Sperm Motility: Progressive motility is crucial for sperm migration through the female reproductive tract. Research has documented a 0.6% per year decrease in sperm motility from 1973-1992 [26]. EDCs like phthalates and BPA have been specifically associated with reduced sperm motility [26].

• Sperm Morphology: The percentage of normally shaped spermatozoa has clinical prognostic value. Studies have reported a 33.4% decrease in normal sperm morphology from 1989-2005 [26]. The WHO reference values for normal morphology were revised downward from 15% to 4% between their 1999 and 2010 manuals, reflecting both changing laboratory practices and genuine declines in population sperm health [26].

Advanced Functional and Molecular Biomarkers in Semen

Beyond conventional parameters, several advanced biomarkers provide deeper insights into EDC-induced damage:

• Sperm DNA Fragmentation Index (DFI): This measures sperm DNA integrity, with elevated DFI (>30%) correlating with lower conception rates and higher miscarriage rates [24]. EDCs generate oxidative stress that can damage sperm DNA, making DFI a valuable marker of toxicant impact [24].

• Sperm Aneuploidy (FISH Analysis): Fluorescence in situ hybridization tests for numerical chromosomal abnormalities, which typically result from meiotic errors during spermatogenesis [24]. Fertile men generally produce <2% aneuploid sperm, while this percentage increases in men with certain EDC exposures [24].

• Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS): While low ROS concentrations are necessary for normal sperm function, elevated levels can cause sperm damage. Infertile men show significantly higher seminal ROS levels, though the lack of consensus on physiologic versus pathologic ranges has limited clinical application [24].

• Antisperm Antibodies (ASA): These immunoglobulins can cause sperm clumping and reduced motility. However, their clinical significance remains controversial, as they show little correlation with semen quality or natural pregnancy rates [24].

Emerging Omics Biomarkers in Seminal Plasma

The field of seminal biomarkers is rapidly evolving with advances in omics technologies:

• Proteomics: Seminal protein-based assays including TEX101, ECM1, and ACRV1 are under development for clinical use. These testis-specific proteins show promise for diagnosing certain forms of infertility [24].

• Genomics and Transcriptomics: Cell-free DNA and RNA in semen provide information about the testicular environment. Due to the blood-testis barrier, these molecules are concentrated in semen while being barely detectable in blood [24].

• Metabolomics: Panels of seminal metabolites are being explored as potential biomarkers for male infertility, though this research remains in early stages [24].

• Microbiome Analysis: The seminal microbiome has been characterized through next-generation sequencing, with specific bacterial patterns (e.g., Lactobacillus dominance vs. Prevotella dominance) showing correlations with semen quality [29].

Experimental Protocols for Semen Biomarker Assessment

Standardized Semen Collection and Analysis Protocol

Proper specimen collection and processing is critical for reliable results:

• Patient Preparation: Instruct patients to maintain 2-5 days of sexual abstinence before sample collection. Document any recent illnesses, fever, or medication use that might affect results [24].

• Sample Collection: Collect specimen in a wide-mouthed, sterile, non-toxic container through masturbation. Ensure quick delivery to the laboratory (within 1 hour) while maintaining proper transportation temperature [24].

• Initial Processing: Allow semen to liquefy at room temperature (15-30 minutes). Perform qualitative observations of color and viscosity, and quantitative measurements of ejaculate volume and pH [24].

• Semen Analysis: Use unstained preparation for manual quantification of sperm count and motility. Calculate total motile count (TMC). Assess sperm morphology based on strict criteria with additional stained preparation [24].

• Quality Control: Perform at least two semen analyses to establish a trend, as substantial biological variability exists between samples. When possible, use the same laboratory for multiple tests to minimize inter-laboratory variability [24].

DNA Fragmentation Assessment Protocol

The Sperm Chromatin Structure Assay (SCSA) represents a validated approach for DFI measurement:

• Sample Dilution: Dilute fresh semen in TNE buffer (0.15 M NaCl, 0.01 M Tris-HCl, 1 mM EDTA, pH 7.4) to a concentration of 2×10^6 sperm/mL.

• Acid Denaturation: Mix 100 μL of diluted sperm with 200 μL of low-pH detergent solution (0.1% Triton X-100, 0.15 M NaCl, 0.08 N HCl, pH 1.2) for 30 seconds.

• Staining: Add 600 μL of acridine orange staining solution (0.2 M Na2HPO4, 1 mM EDTA, 0.15 M NaCl, 0.1 M citric acid, pH 6.0, containing 6 μg/mL acridine orange).

• Flow Cytometry: Analyze samples by flow cytometry within 3-5 minutes of staining. Measure the ratio of red (denatured DNA) to green (native DNA) fluorescence.

• Interpretation: Calculate DFI as the percentage of sperm with denatured DNA. Values <15% are considered excellent, 15-30% intermediate, and >30% poor fertility potential [24].

Seminal Plasma Biomarker Extraction Protocol

For proteomic and metabolomic analyses:

• Semen Centrifugation: Centrifuge liquefied semen at 3000×g for 15 minutes to separate spermatozoa from seminal plasma.

• Plasma Collection: Carefully transfer the supernatant (seminal plasma) to a clean tube without disturbing the cell pellet.

• Protein Precipitation: Add 4 volumes of cold acetone to 1 volume of seminal plasma. Incubate at -20°C for 2 hours, then centrifuge at 10,000×g for 10 minutes.

• Metabolite Extraction: For metabolomic studies, use methanol:water (4:1) extraction followed by centrifugation and collection of supernatant.

• Sample Storage: Store processed samples at -80°C until analysis. Avoid multiple freeze-thaw cycles to preserve biomarker integrity.

EDC Exposure Pathways and Impact on Semen Quality

Common EDCs and Their Mechanisms of Action

Various EDCs impact semen quality through diverse molecular mechanisms:

Specific EDC Effects on Semen Parameters

The impact of EDCs on semen quality has been demonstrated through both epidemiological studies and controlled experiments:

• Phthalates: Exposure correlates with decreased sperm concentration, normal morphology, and motility. Prenatal exposure causes inhibition of testosterone production and impaired testicular development [26].

• Bisphenol A (BPA): Associated with reduced sperm morphology and motility in animal models. BPA exposure has been correlated with increased risk of cryptorchidism, which itself is associated with poor semen quality [26].

• Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Increased exposure is associated with decreased sperm count, motility, and normal morphology in human studies [26].

• Pesticides: Organophosphate exposure reduces semen volume and increases pH, while various pesticide classes decrease normal sperm morphology, count, and motility [26].

• Heavy Metals: Cadmium, lead, and mercury exposure has been linked to gland dysfunction, abnormalities in muscular functions, and infertility through disruption of hormone signaling [28].

Analytical Techniques for Semen Biomarker Assessment

Comparison of Major Analytical Platforms

Analytical Platform	Detection Principle	Sensitivity	Throughput	Cost	Primary Applications in Semen Analysis
Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)	Separation + mass detection	High (ppb-ppt)	Medium	High	EDC metabolite quantification, Proteomics, Metabolomics [28]
Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS)	Separation + mass detection	High (ppb-ppt)	Medium	High	Volatile EDCs, Pesticides, POPs [28]
Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS)	Plasma ionization + mass detection	Very High (ppt-ppq)	High	Very High	Heavy metals, Trace elements [28]
Flow Cytometry	Light scattering + fluorescence	Medium	High	Medium	Sperm DNA fragmentation, Viability, Surface markers [24]
Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH)	Fluorescent DNA probes	Low	Low	Medium	Sperm aneuploidy, Chromosomal abnormalities [24]
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)	DNA sequencing	High	Medium	High	Semen microbiome, Sperm epigenetics [29]

Advanced Sensor Technologies for EDC Detection

Emerging biosensor technologies offer promising alternatives to traditional instrumentation:

• Electrochemical Sensors: These measure electrical signals resulting from chemical reactions between EDCs and biological recognition elements. They offer portability, rapid detection, and high sensitivity for compounds like BPA and pesticides [28].

• Optical Biosensors: Utilizing light absorption, fluorescence, or surface plasmon resonance, these sensors can detect EDCs through antigen-antibody interactions or molecular imprinting. They show potential for continuous monitoring of EDCs in environmental and biological samples [28].

• Aptamer-Based Sensors: Using synthetic nucleic acid or peptide molecules as recognition elements, these offer high specificity and stability compared to antibody-based approaches. They can be engineered for various EDC targets including BPA and phthalates [28].

• Microbial Sensors: Employing genetically modified microorganisms that respond to EDC exposure through measurable signals (e.g., fluorescence, bioluminescence). These provide functional assessment of endocrine activity but face challenges in specificity and stability [28].

Statistical Considerations and Sample Size Requirements

Robust study design is essential for meaningful EDC biomarker research. An exposome-wide association study (EWAS) of semen quality determined that research in male fertility requires a mean sample size of 2,696 men (range: 1,795-3,625) to attain a statistical power of 0.8 for detecting modest associations [27]. This far exceeds the average sample size of 201 men in four published studies, indicating that most existing research is underpowered [27].

Merging cohorts and implementing collaborative consortia approaches are necessary to ensure sufficient sample sizes for assessing EDC mixtures that impact semen quality. Additionally, studies must account for the complex correlation structure between multiple EDC exposures and various semen parameters when determining sample size requirements [27].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Research Tool	Function	Example Applications	Technical Considerations
Sperm Washing Media	Remove seminal plasma while maintaining sperm viability	Sperm preparation for ART, Functional assays	Must contain energy substrates, protein source, buffers
Acridine Orange	Metachromatic dye for DNA denaturation assessment	Sperm Chromatin Structure Assay (SCSA)	Requires flow cytometry; pH-critical staining
Annexin V Assays	Detect phosphatidylserine externalization (early apoptosis marker)	Sperm viability assessment	Often combined with propidium iodide for viability staining
Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) Detection Kits	Measure oxidative stress in spermatozoa	Chemiluminescence assays with luminol/lucigenin	Requires luminometer; results affected by leukocyte contamination
Computer-Assisted Sperm Analysis (CASA)	Automated assessment of sperm concentration and motility	Standardized semen analysis	Requires strict calibration and quality control
Hypo-osmotic Swelling (HOS) Test	Assess sperm membrane integrity	Sperm viability testing	Correlates with membrane function and fertility potential
Sperm DNA Fragmentation Kits	Quantitate DNA damage (TUNEL, SCD, Comet assays)	Sperm DNA integrity assessment	Different assays may measure different types of DNA damage
Microvolume Spectrophotometers	Quantitate DNA, RNA, protein in seminal plasma	Quality assessment of extracted biomarkers	Requires minimal sample volume; rapid analysis
Vanadium trisulfate	Vanadium Trisulfate | Research Chemical | Supplier	High-purity Vanadium Trisulfate for research applications. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary diagnostic or therapeutic use.	Bench Chemicals
Stannous laurate	Stannous Laurate | High-Purity Catalyst | RUO	Stannous laurate, a high-purity tin catalyst for polyurethane foam & silicone curing. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.	Bench Chemicals

Future Perspectives and Research Directions

The field of semen biomonitoring for EDC exposure assessment is rapidly evolving with several promising directions:

• Multi-omics Integration: Combining proteomic, metabolomic, epigenomic, and microbiome data from semen samples will provide comprehensive insights into EDC impacts on male reproductive health [24].

• Advanced Sensor Development: Creating portable, affordable sensors for EDC detection in clinical and home settings could revolutionize exposure assessment and intervention strategies [28].

• Intervention Studies: Personalized intervention programs show promise in reducing EDC exposures. The REED study demonstrated that report-back of personalized exposure data, combined with education, led to significant reductions in phthalate metabolites and behavior changes [25].

• Clinical Biomarker Validation: Connecting EDC exposure reductions to improvements in clinical biomarkers remains a critical research gap. Future studies must demonstrate that reducing EDC exposures leads to measurable improvements in semen parameters and fertility outcomes [25].

• Regulatory Applications: As non-invasive biomarkers in semen become validated, they may be incorporated into chemical risk assessments and regulatory decision-making, particularly for vulnerable populations such as men of reproductive age [4].

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) represent a significant concern for public health, with exposure routes playing a critical role in determining their biological impact and associated health risks. These exogenous substances interfere with hormonal systems, leading to potential adverse effects on reproduction, development, metabolism, and increased susceptibility to chronic diseases [30] [31]. The ubiquitous presence of EDCs in environmental and consumer products necessitates a thorough understanding of how these compounds enter the human body. This guide objectively compares the three primary exposure routes—ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption—within the context of validating non-invasive biomonitoring methods for exposure assessment research. As the Endocrine Society emphasizes, advancing scientific knowledge about EDC exposure is crucial for developing effective public health policies and protective strategies [31].

Comparative Analysis of EDC Exposure Routes

Human exposure to EDCs occurs through multiple pathways, with the predominant routes being ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption [32] [33]. Each pathway presents distinct characteristics in terms of exposure sources, absorption efficiency, and internal distribution, ultimately influencing the resulting body burden and potential health effects. Understanding these differences is fundamental for designing accurate exposure assessment strategies and targeted intervention measures.

Table 1: Comparative Profile of Primary EDC Exposure Routes

Exposure Route	Major Sources of EDCs	Key Physiochemical Factors	Absorption Efficiency & Considerations
Ingestion	Contaminated food and water, food packaging, hand-to-mouth contact [30] [33].	Lipophilicity, molecular size, resistance to gastrointestinal degradation [30].	High internal exposure due to significant absorption; undergoes first-pass liver metabolism, which can detoxify or activate compounds [30].
Inhalation	Airborne particles and dust, volatile compounds, industrial emissions, household products [30] [34].	Volatility, particle size, gas/particle partitioning.	Significant absorption in respiratory tract; efficient entry into bloodstream bypassing first-pass metabolism [30].
Dermal Absorption	Personal care products (cosmetics, lotions), sanitizers, textiles, handling of plastics [30] [35].	Lipophilicity, molecular weight, vehicle effect.	Absorption occurs in situ; bypasses first-pass metabolism, but often has lower overall absorption rate compared to other routes [30].

The concept of aggregate exposure is critical, as individuals are typically exposed to complex mixtures of EDCs through all these routes simultaneously [36]. Furthermore, the cocktail effect describes how coexisting EDCs in the body can produce synergistic or additive health impacts, even when individual chemicals are present at low concentrations [30]. This complexity underscores the importance of biomonitoring, which measures the internal dose resulting from all exposure sources and routes combined.

Quantitative Data on Exposure and Internal Dose

Translating external exposure into internal body burden is a complex process influenced by the route of entry, pharmacokinetics, and individual metabolic factors. The following table summarizes key quantitative data and associations for major EDC classes.

Table 2: Exposure Levels, Biomonitoring Data, and Health Correlations for Selected EDCs

EDC Class	Typical Exposure Levels & Sources	Biomonitoring Concentrations (Human)	Correlated Health Effects (from Epidemiological Studies)
Phthalates	Plasticizers in food packaging, PVC, personal care products. Daily intake estimated at 1-20 µg/kg body weight [34].	DEHP metabolites detected in seminal plasma at 0.77-1.85 µg/mL [34].	Reduced sperm concentration and motility, developmental and fertility problems [32] [34].
Bisphenol A (BPA)	Plastics, food container linings, thermal paper. Daily intake ~0.1-4 µg/kg body weight [34].	Widespread detection in urine; Tolerable Daily Intake set at 50 µg/kg [34].	Estrogenic effects; associated with obesity, metabolic disorders, and hormone-sensitive cancers [33] [37].
Heavy Metals	Contaminated drinking water, food chain bioaccumulation, industrial exposure [34].	Blood lead >10 µg/dL; Seminal lead accumulation at 3.2 ± 0.8 µg/dL [34].	Sperm DNA damage, compromised blood-testis barrier, impaired sperm quality [34].
Persistent Organic Pollutants	Industrial processes, legacy pesticides, bioaccumulation in food chain [33] [34].	Detectable in virtually every individual; half-lives of 3-7 years for PBDEs, over two decades for PCBs [37] [34].	Linked to metabolic disorders, type 2 diabetes, and hormone-responsive cancers [33].

A critical challenge in EDC research is the non-monotonic dose response (NMDR), where low doses can have more pronounced effects than higher doses, disrupting traditional toxicological paradigms of threshold and potency [31]. This, coupled with the heightened vulnerability during developmental windows, complicates the establishment of definitive "safe" exposure levels [30] [31].

Experimental Protocols for Exposure Assessment

Validating non-invasive biomonitoring methods requires rigorous experimental protocols that bridge external exposure estimates with internal dose measurements.

Protocol for Biomonitoring and Exposure Reconstruction

This protocol leverages biomonitoring data to reconstruct prior exposure, a key application for non-invasive methods [36].

• Objective: To quantify cumulative exposure to a target EDC by measuring its concentration or metabolites in a non-invasively collected biological specimen (e.g., urine, saliva, hair).
• Sample Collection: Collect biological samples using standardized, contamination-free protocols. First-morning urine voids are common for non-persistent chemicals, while hair samples can indicate longer-term exposure to metals and POPs.
• Chemical Analysis: Utilize high-resolution techniques like Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) or Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) to identify and quantify EDCs and their metabolites.
• Data Interpretation with Pharmacokinetic (PK) Models: Apply PK models, such as reverse dosimetry, to back-calculate the likely external exposure dose from the measured internal biomarker concentration [36]. For urine data, corrections for creatinine are often applied to account for dilution variations [36].

Protocol for In Vitro Dermal Permeation

This methodology assesses the potential for dermal absorption of EDCs from consumer products.

• Objective: To determine the permeability coefficient and absorption rate of a target EDC through human skin.
• Apparatus: Use a Franz diffusion cell with a viable excised human skin membrane (e.g., epidermis or full-thickness skin) separating a donor chamber (containing the EDC in a vehicle) from a receptor chamber (containing a physiologically relevant fluid like PBS).
• Experimental Procedure: Apply a known concentration of the EDC to the donor chamber. Maintain the receptor chamber at 37°C and agitate continuously. At predetermined time intervals, sample the receptor fluid and analyze the EDC concentration using LC-MS/MS.
• Data Analysis: Calculate the flux of the EDC across the skin membrane and its permeability coefficient to quantify dermal absorption potential.

Signaling Pathways and Molecular Mechanisms of EDCs

EDCs exert their adverse effects by interfering with hormonal signaling through diverse molecular mechanisms. The following diagram synthesizes the primary pathways disrupted by EDCs across exposure routes.

EDC Mechanisms and Health Outcomes

The diagram illustrates how EDCs, regardless of entry route, converge in the systemic circulation to disrupt endocrine function via multiple interconnected mechanisms. These include: (1) direct interaction with nuclear receptors (e.g., ER, AR, TR) to mimic or block natural hormones [37] [38]; (2) interference with enzyme systems critical for steroid hormone synthesis and metabolism [37] [31]; and (3) activation of epigenetic machinery, leading to DNA methylation and histone modification changes that can cause transgenerational inheritance of disease susceptibility [34] [38]. These initiating molecular events cascade into the adverse health outcomes documented in [30], [33], and [37].

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Advancing research on EDC exposure routes and biomonitoring requires a specific set of validated reagents, analytical tools, and biological models.

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for EDC Exposure and Biomarker Studies

Tool Category	Specific Examples	Primary Function in Research
Analytical Standards	Deuterated BPA (d16-BPA), Carbon-13 labeled PCB congeners, Isotopically-labeled phthalate metabolites.	Serve as internal standards in mass spectrometry for precise and accurate quantification of target EDCs in complex biological and environmental samples.
Biological Reagents	Recombinant human estrogen receptor alpha (ERα), Anti-androgen receptor antibody, Human liver microsomes (HLM), Commercially available skin models (e.g., EpiDerm).	Used in receptor binding assays, enzymatic activity studies, and dermal permeation experiments to investigate specific mechanisms of EDC action.
Sample Collection Kits	Creatinine assay kits, DNA methylation analysis kits (e.g., for bisulfite conversion), Phlebotomy kits for serum/plasma, Specimen containers for urine/hair.	Enable standardized, non-invasive collection and initial processing of biological specimens for biomonitoring and epigenetic analysis.
Cell-Based Assay Systems	MCF-7 cell proliferation (E-Screen), MDA-kb2 androgenic/anti-androgenic assay, Aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) reporter gene assays.	Provide in vitro models for high-throughput screening of EDC activity via specific hormonal pathways.
Altenin	Altenin | High-Purity Inhibitor | Supplier	Altenin is a potent, selective kinase inhibitor for cancer research & cell signaling studies. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.
Tetrathionic acid	Tetrathionic Acid Supplier|H2S4O6 For Research	High-purity Tetrathionic Acid (H2S4O6) for biochemical and physiological research. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary diagnostic or therapeutic use.

The comparative analysis of ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption routes confirms that each pathway contributes significantly to the overall body burden of EDCs, with route-specific factors influencing internal dose and potential health impacts. Ingestion often leads to high internal exposure, inhalation provides direct entry to the bloodstream, and dermal contact, while sometimes less efficient, bypasses first-pass metabolism and is relevant for many consumer products. The validation of non-invasive biomonitoring methods, such as urine, saliva, or hair analysis, is paramount for accurately reconstructing aggregate exposure from all routes [35] [36]. Future research must prioritize understanding the effects of complex EDC mixtures, low-dose chronic exposures, and transgenerational epigenetic effects to fully elucidate the human health risks and strengthen the scientific foundation for protective regulatory policies [34] [31].

Advanced Analytical Techniques for Non-Invasive EDC Detection: From Sample Prep to Instrumentation

Human biomonitoring (HBM) has become an indispensable tool for assessing exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), with increasing emphasis on non-invasively collected matrices to enable broader participant inclusion and repeated sampling [39]. The complexity of biological matrices necessitates sophisticated sample preparation to isolate target analytes from interfering substances while maintaining analytical integrity. This guide objectively compares two sample preparation techniques—QuEChERS for urine and SALLE (Salting-Out Assisted Liquid-Liquid Extraction) for seminal fluid—within the context of validating non-invasive biomonitoring methods for EDC exposure assessment.

QuEChERS for Urine Analysis: Principles and Applications

QuEChERS (Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged, and Safe) was originally developed for pesticide analysis in food matrices but has recently been adapted for biological samples, including urine. The method involves a single-step extraction with acetonitrile followed by a dispersive solid-phase extraction (d-SPE) clean-up using primary-secondary amine (PSA) and other sorbents to remove interfering compounds [40].

A 2025 study detailed the successful application of QuEChERS as a clean-up step for determining 13 EDCs (organophosphate esters, phthalates, and paraben metabolites) in human urine, marking one of the first uses of this technique in this biological matrix [40]. The researchers optimized sample preparation by evaluating different sample volumes (2 mL and 5 mL) and final dilution volumes (100, 500, and 1000 µL) to balance matrix interference reduction with sensitivity requirements [40].

Experimental Protocol: QuEChERS for Urine

• Sample Preparation: Collect urine samples in appropriate containers. Centrifuge at 3500 rpm for 10 minutes to remove particulate matter.

• Enzymatic Deconjugation: Add β-glucuronidase enzyme (>20,000 units/mg protein) to hydrolyze glucuronide conjugates of EDC metabolites. Incubate at 37°C for 2 hours [40].

• Extraction: Transfer 2-5 mL of urine to a centrifuge tube containing QuEChERS salt mixture (e.g., SALT-Kit-AC2). Add acetonitrile (typically 1:1 v/v), shake vigorously for 1 minute, and centrifuge [40] [41].

• Clean-up: Transfer the supernatant to a d-SPE tube containing PSA and MgSO4. Vortex and centrifuge to remove polar interferences, organic acids, and residual water [41].

• Analysis: Dilute the cleaned extract (100-1000 µL final volume) and analyze via HPLC-QTOF or LC-MS/MS [40].

SALLE for Seminal Fluid: Technical Considerations

While research specifically documenting SALLE for seminal fluid analysis of EDCs is limited in the available literature, the technique's principles can be extrapolated from its applications in other complex matrices. SALLE utilizes the "salting-out" effect, where high concentrations of salt reduce the solubility of organic solvents in water, thereby enhancing the partitioning of analytes into the organic phase.

Seminal fluid presents a complex matrix containing proteins, lipids, electrolytes, and various organic compounds that can interfere with analytical measurements. SALLE offers advantages for such matrices by precipitating proteins and simultaneously extracting analytes of interest.

Experimental Protocol: SALLE for Seminal Fluid

• Sample Preparation: Collect seminal fluid samples and centrifuge at high speed (10,000 rpm) for 15 minutes to remove cellular debris and particulate matter.

• Protein Precipitation: Add acetonitrile or acetone (typically 1:2 v/v sample to solvent) to precipitate proteins. Vortex and centrifuge.

• Salting-Out: Transfer supernatant to a new tube and add salt (commonly MgSO4, NaCl, or ammonium sulfate). Shake vigorously and centrifuge to separate phases.

• Extraction: Collect the organic layer for evaporation and reconstitution in mobile phase-compatible solvent.

• Analysis: Analyze via GC-MS or LC-MS/MS following appropriate derivatization if necessary.

Performance Comparison: Quantitative Data Analysis

The table below summarizes performance characteristics of QuEChERS for urine analysis based on recent studies, alongside theoretical performance expectations for SALLE in seminal fluid:

Parameter	QuEChERS for Urine (EDCs) [40]	SALLE for Seminal Fluid (Theoretical)
Extraction Efficiency	67-99% accuracy for target EDCs	Estimated 70-110% (matrix-dependent)
Precision	Inter- and intra-day precision <20% for most analytes	Estimated <15% with optimization
Linearity	r² > 0.99 for all compounds	Expected r² > 0.98 with proper calibration
LOD/LOQ	MDL: 0.01-0.33 ng/mL; MQL: 0.03-1.08 ng/mL	Matrix-dependent; likely higher than urine
Matrix Effects	Significant reduction through optimized clean-up	Moderate to high without additional clean-up
Sample Throughput	High (parallel processing of multiple samples)	Moderate to high
Cost per Sample	Low to moderate	Low

Workflow Visualization: QuEChERS for Urine Analysis

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Example
QuEChERS Kits	Single-step extraction and clean-up	EDC analysis in urine [40]
β-Glucuronidase	Enzyme hydrolysis of conjugates	Releasing free EDCs from glucuronide metabolites [40] [41]
PSA Sorbent	Removal of polar interferences	Clean-up of organic acids, sugars in urine [41]
C18 Sorbent	Lipophilic compound retention	Alternative clean-up for non-polar EDCs
MgSO4	Water removal from organic phase	Drying agent in extraction process [40]
HPLC-QTOF/MS	High-resolution separation and detection	Simultaneous quantification of multiple EDCs [40]
Ammonium Acetate	Buffer for mobile phase	Improving ionization in MS detection [40]
Archangelenone	Archangelenone | High-Purity Research Compound	High-purity Archangelenone for research. Explore its bioactive potential in oncology & inflammation studies. For Research Use Only. Not for human use.
Yttrium triiodate	Yttrium Triiodate | High Purity Reagent Supplier	High-purity Yttrium Triiodate for materials science and catalysis research. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.

Analytical Considerations for Non-Invasive Biomonitoring

The shift toward non-invasive matrices like urine and seminal fluid in EDC exposure assessment reflects growing ethical and practical considerations in biomonitoring study design [39]. Each matrix offers distinct advantages:

Urine provides an excellent matrix for detecting recently absorbed, non-persistent EDCs and their metabolites, with well-established correlation to blood levels for many compounds [39]. The QuEChERS approach enhances this application by providing adequate clean-up for complex urine matrices while maintaining high throughput.

Seminal fluid represents a promising but underutilized matrix that may offer unique insights into male reproductive health impacts of EDC exposure. The theoretical application of SALLE to this matrix requires further validation but shows potential for addressing the challenging protein and lipid content.

The choice between QuEChERS for urine and SALLE for seminal fluid depends on research objectives, target analytes, and available resources. QuEChERS offers a validated, robust approach for urine analysis with demonstrated effectiveness for multiple EDC classes. SALLE presents a promising alternative for seminal fluid analysis but requires further method development and validation specifically for this matrix and target EDCs.

Both techniques contribute significantly to the advancement of non-invasive biomonitoring, enabling larger-scale epidemiological studies and repeated measures designs that are essential for understanding the health impacts of EDC exposures across critical life stages.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) represent a significant concern in environmental and clinical research due to their potential to interfere with hormonal systems at very low concentrations. The quantification of EDCs poses substantial analytical challenges, requiring methods capable of detecting trace levels in complex biological and environmental matrices. This guide examines the position of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) within the analytical landscape for EDC research, particularly focusing on its role in validating non-invasive biomonitoring methods. While immunochemical techniques have traditionally been used for biomonitoring, LC-MS/MS has emerged as the preferred analytical platform for targeted EDC quantification due to its superior specificity, sensitivity, and ability to simultaneously analyze multiple compounds. This comparison evaluates the performance of LC-MS/MS against alternative technologies and provides detailed experimental frameworks for its application in EDC exposure assessment research.

Comparative Performance of EDC Quantification Methods

The quantification of EDCs in biological and environmental samples primarily relies on three methodological approaches: immunoassays, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Each technique offers distinct advantages and limitations for specific applications in exposure assessment.

Immunoassays provide a high-throughput, cost-effective solution for analyzing large sample sets but may suffer from cross-reactivity issues and limited multiplexing capabilities. GC-MS offers excellent separation efficiency and sensitivity for volatile and semi-volatile compounds but typically requires extensive sample derivatization for less volatile EDCs. LC-MS/MS, particularly when coupled with high-resolution mass analyzers (HRMS), has become the cornerstone of modern EDC biomonitoring due to its unparalleled specificity, wide dynamic range, and ability to quantify diverse EDC classes without derivatization.

Quantitative Performance Comparison

The table below summarizes the key performance characteristics of major analytical platforms used in EDC quantification:

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Analytical Platforms for EDC Quantification

Analytical Platform	Sensitivity	Specificity	Multiplexing Capacity	Sample Throughput	Best Application Context
Immunoassay	Moderate to High (ng-pg/mL)	Moderate (cross-reactivity concerns)	Low (typically single-analyte)	High	High-volume targeted screening
GC-MS	High (pg-fg range)	High	Moderate (10-30 compounds)	Moderate	Volatile/semi-volatile EDCs
LC-MS/MS (Triple Quadrupole)	Very High (fg-pg range)	Very High	High (50-100+ compounds)	Moderate to High	Targeted quantification of complex mixtures
LC-HRMS (Orbitrap, Q-TOF)	High (pg-fg range)	Highest (exact mass measurement)	Highest (targeted + untargeted)	Moderate	Comprehensive screening & unknown identification

Recent advancements in LC-MS/MS instrumentation have significantly improved their applicability for EDC biomonitoring. Research demonstrates that LC-MS/MS provides "greater specificity, speed, analyte range, throughput, and multiplexing capabilities coupled with a lower cost per sample and reduced sample volumes" compared to traditional immunoassays [42]. This makes LC-MS/MS particularly valuable for large-scale biomonitoring studies where comprehensive exposure assessment is required.

Experimental Protocols for LC-MS/MS-Based EDC Quantification

Sample Preparation and Extraction

Solid-phase extraction (SPE) represents the most widely used sample preparation technique for EDC analysis in liquid samples. The following protocol has been validated for seawater analysis but is adaptable to urine and other biological matrices:

• Sample Collection: Collect water samples in pre-cleaned glass containers; biological samples in appropriate collection vessels. For non-invasive biomonitoring, urine should be collected in sterile polypropylene containers without preservatives.

• Sample Preservation: Acidify water samples to pH 2-3 with hydrochloric acid; add enzyme inhibitors to urine samples if analyzing phase II metabolites.

• Extraction Procedure: Process samples using large-volume solid-phase extraction with appropriate sorbents (e.g., hydrophilic-lipophilic balanced polymers). For a broad polarity range of EDCs (log P 1.30-9.85), hydrophilic divinylbenzene sorbents have demonstrated effective extraction [43].

• Elution and Concentration: Elute with organic solvents (e.g., methanol, acetonitrile), evaporate under gentle nitrogen stream, and reconstitute in initial mobile phase composition for LC-MS/MS analysis.

This approach has been successfully applied for the simultaneous extraction of 70 steroidal EDCs and 27 plastics additives and plasticizers from marine environmental samples [43].

Instrumental Analysis Parameters

The table below outlines optimized LC-MS/MS conditions for comprehensive EDC analysis:

Table 2: LC-MS/MS Instrumental Parameters for EDC Quantification

Parameter	Settings for Triple Quadrupole MS	Settings for HRMS (Q-TOF)
Chromatography	UHPLC with C18 column (2.1 × 100 mm, 1.7-1.8 μm)	UHPLC with C18 column (2.1 × 100 mm, 1.7-1.8 μm)
Mobile Phase	A: Water with 0.1% formic acid; B: Methanol or Acetonitrile with 0.1% formic acid	A: Water with 0.1% formic acid; B: Methanol with 0.1% formic acid
Gradient Program	5-95% B over 15-20 min	2-100% B over 15-20 min
Flow Rate	0.3-0.4 mL/min	0.3-0.4 mL/min
Ionization Mode	Electrospray ionization (ESI) positive/negative switching	Electrospray ionization (ESI) positive/negative switching
Source Temperature	500-600°C	500-600°C
Resolution Power	Unit resolution (1-2 Da)	High resolution (>25,000 FWHM)
Data Acquisition	Multiple reaction monitoring (MRM)	Full scan (MS1) and data-dependent MS/MS

Method validation following international guidelines (e.g., 2002/657/EC and Eurachem) demonstrates that such LC-MS/MS methods achieve excellent performance characteristics for EDC quantification, including precision (CV < 20%), recovery (80-120%), and linearity (R² > 0.99) across a wide concentration range [43].

Data Analysis and Quality Control

For targeted analysis, use internal standard quantification with stable isotope-labeled analogs when available. For untargeted screening, apply retrospective analysis of full-scan data using accurate mass databases. Implement rigorous quality control measures including:

• Process blanks to monitor contamination
• Matrix-matched calibration standards
• Quality control samples at low, medium, and high concentrations
• Internal standards for each analyte class

The workflow for LC-MS/MS analysis of EDCs follows a systematic process from sample to result:

LC-MS/MS Instrumentation and Platform Selection

Mass Analyzer Technology Comparison

The selection of appropriate mass spectrometry technology is crucial for meeting specific EDC research requirements. The key mass analyzer technologies for LC-MS/MS include:

Triple Quadrupole (QqQ) Mass Spectrometers operating in multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode represent the gold standard for sensitive targeted quantification. These instruments provide the highest sensitivity for predetermined target lists, making them ideal for quantifying known EDCs at trace concentrations in complex matrices.

High-Resolution Mass Spectrometers (HRMS), including Quadrupole-Time-of-Flight (Q-TOF) and Orbitrap instruments, offer the advantage of accurate mass measurement for both targeted and untargeted analysis. While historically considered less sensitive than triple quadrupole systems for targeted analysis, modern HRMS instruments have closed this gap while providing additional capabilities for metabolite identification and retrospective data analysis.

Table 3: Comparison of Mass Analyzer Technologies for EDC Analysis

Parameter	Triple Quadrupole (QqQ)	Q-TOF	Orbitrap
Resolving Power	Unit resolution (1-2 Da)	40,000-80,000	60,000-500,000
Mass Accuracy	100-500 ppm	<5 ppm	<3 ppm
Optimal Application	Targeted quantification	Untargeted screening, metabolite ID	Targeted & untargeted with high mass accuracy
Scan Speed	Fast MRM transitions	Moderate to Fast	Moderate
Dynamic Range	4-5 orders of magnitude	4-5 orders of magnitude	4-5 orders of magnitude
Quantitative Performance	Excellent	Good to Excellent	Good to Excellent

The fundamental relationship between resolving power and analytical confidence in mass spectrometry is crucial for EDC identification:

Platform Selection Guidelines

Selecting the appropriate LC-MS/MS platform depends on specific research objectives:

• Targeted Biomonitoring: For studies focusing on a predefined panel of EDCs, triple quadrupole LC-MS/MS operating in MRM mode provides optimal sensitivity and quantitative precision.

• Exposome-wide Screening: For comprehensive analysis of both known and unknown EDCs, LC-HRMS (Q-TOF or Orbitrap) enables both targeted quantification and untargeted discovery.

• Non-invasive Biomonitoring: For urine-based studies, UHPLC-MS/MS with polarity switching provides maximal coverage of diverse EDC metabolites.

Research demonstrates that "LC-MS represents a complementary and potentially future replacement of the immunoassay by offering greater specificity, speed, analyte range, throughput, and multiplexing capabilities" [42]. This positions LC-MS/MS as the foundational technology for advancing EDC exposure science.

Applications in Non-Invasive Biomonitoring Method Validation

Urinary Biomarker Quantification

LC-MS/MS has become indispensable for validating non-invasive biomonitoring methods, particularly through urinary EDC metabolite quantification. The steroidomics approach using UHPLC-HRMS enables simultaneous targeted and untargeted analysis of a wide range of sex and stress steroids in urine [44]. This methodology has been successfully applied to wildlife biomonitoring, with demonstrated capability to uniquely detect 50 steroids (conjugated and non-conjugated androgens, estrogens, progestogens, and glucocorticoids) and 6 prostaglandins [44].

The validation parameters for such methods include:

• Excellent linearity (R² > 0.99 for targeted analysis)
• Precision (CV < 20% for most compounds)
• Recovery (80-120% for majority of analytes)
• Low detection limits (<0.01 ng μL⁻¹ for 45 of 56 compounds)

This approach has successfully differentiated reproductive phases in giant pandas through urinary steroid profiles, demonstrating its utility for non-invasive endocrine monitoring [44].

Complementary Sampling Approaches

LC-MS/MS analysis supports the integration of multiple sampling strategies for comprehensive EDC assessment:

Active Sampling provides instantaneous concentration measurements, with LC-MS/MS enabling detection of EDCs at environmentally relevant concentrations (e.g., steroidal EDCs below 10 ng L⁻¹ and plasticizers between 10-1000 ng L⁻¹) [43].

Passive Sampling using novel sorbents like hydrophilic divinylbenzene allows time-integrated monitoring of EDCs across a broad polarity range. The sampler-water partition coefficients (Ksw) for 131 compounds have been determined, demonstrating that uptake of phthalates and steroidal EDCs is mediated by both physisorption and chemisorption [43].

The complementary nature of these approaches, enabled by LC-MS/MS analysis, provides a more complete exposure assessment strategy than either method alone.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The successful implementation of LC-MS/MS methods for EDC quantification relies on several key research reagents and materials:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for LC-MS/MS EDC Analysis

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Example
Stable Isotope-Labeled Internal Standards	Correction for matrix effects and recovery losses	Deuterated EDC analogs for precise quantification
Solid-Phase Extraction Cartridges	Sample cleanup and analyte enrichment	HLB cartridges for broad-spectrum EDC extraction
UHPLC Columns	Chromatographic separation of analytes	C18 columns (1.7-1.8 μm) for high-resolution separation
Mobile Phase Additives	Modifying ionization efficiency and separation	Formic acid, ammonium acetate, ammonium fluoride
Quality Control Materials	Method validation and quality assurance	Certified reference materials, pooled biological samples

The selection of appropriate internal standards is particularly critical for accurate quantification. Research demonstrates that "quantification using labeled internal standards is more expensive per sample but provides higher quality data than label-free quantification" [45]. For absolute quantification of proteins (including proteinaceous EDC biomarkers), the AQUA (absolute quantification) synthetic peptides approach is recommended for analyzing fewer than nine proteins, while the QconCAT (quantification concatemer) technique is more economical for quantifying defined sets of 10-50 proteins [45].

LC-MS/MS has unequivocally established itself as the gold standard for EDC quantification in support of non-invasive biomonitoring method validation. Its superior specificity, sensitivity, and multiplexing capacity compared to immunoassays and GC-MS methods make it indispensable for comprehensive exposure assessment. The continuing evolution of high-resolution mass spectrometry platforms further expands the capabilities for both targeted quantification and untargeted discovery of novel EDCs and their metabolites.

As non-invasive biomonitoring approaches continue to gain prominence in environmental and clinical research, LC-MS/MS will play an increasingly critical role in validating these methods and providing the robust analytical data necessary to understand the impact of EDC exposure on human and wildlife health. The experimental frameworks and technical comparisons provided in this guide offer researchers a foundation for implementing LC-MS/MS methodologies in their EDC biomonitoring research programs.

Human biomonitoring of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is crucial for understanding exposure profiles and associated health risks. The ability to simultaneously detect multiple EDC classes—including bisphenols, phthalates, parabens, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—in a single analytical run represents a significant advancement in exposure science. Traditional single-analyte approaches fail to capture the real-world reality of mixed chemical exposures, where individuals are consistently exposed to complex mixtures of these compounds through food, personal care products, and environmental media [46] [25]. Simultaneous multi-analyte panels address this challenge by providing a comprehensive assessment of exposure profiles while offering practical advantages of reduced sample volume requirements, decreased analysis time, and lower per-analyte costs [47].

The validation of these analytical approaches is particularly important for non-invasive biomonitoring strategies that utilize urine, hair, or saliva rather than blood samples [35]. This methodological evolution supports a fundamental shift in exposure assessment toward understanding the "exposome"—the cumulative measure of all environmental exposures throughout an individual's lifetime [25]. This article compares the performance of various simultaneous detection strategies, provides detailed experimental protocols, and contextualizes their application within EDC exposure assessment research.

Analytical Technique Comparison: LC-MS/MS Versus Emerging Sensor Technologies

Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Platforms

Liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) remains the gold standard for simultaneous EDC quantification due to its superior sensitivity, specificity, and ability to handle complex biological matrices. Advanced LC-MS/MS methods can simultaneously extract and quantify multiple EDC classes—including phthalate metabolites, bisphenols, parabens, and hydroxylated PAHs—from small sample volumes (typically 0.2-1.0 mL) [48] [47]. The core strength of this approach lies in its high structural specificity achieved through chromatographic separation coupled with mass-based detection using multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) [47].

Key methodological advancements include the use of enzymatic deconjugation (typically with β-glucuronidase) to release phase-II metabolites, solid-phase extraction (SPE) for sample cleanup and preconcentration, and sophisticated ionization techniques such as electrospray ionization (ESI) and atmospheric pressure photoionization (APPI) [49] [48]. These developments have enabled impressive analytical performance with method detection limits in the ng/L to μg/L range, recovery rates typically between 70-120%, and inter- and intra-day precision below 15% RSD [49] [48] [47].

Emerging Biosensor Technologies

While conventional LC-MS/MS methods dominate quantitative EDC analysis, biosensor technologies represent a promising alternative for rapid, portable, and cost-effective screening applications. Recent advances in biosensor design have yielded platforms capable of detecting EDCs through various transduction mechanisms, including electrochemical, optical, and microbial sensing approaches [50]. These systems offer distinct advantages for field-deployable analysis and high-throughput screening, though they generally lack the comprehensive multi-analyte capability and sensitivity of MS-based methods [50] [51].

Biosensors function by coupling a biological recognition element (e.g., antibodies, aptamers, whole cells) with a physicochemical detector. Aptamer-based sensors have shown particular promise for small molecule detection, with nanomaterials like graphene oxide, carbon nanotubes, and metal nanoparticles enhancing signal transduction [50] [51]. While current biosensor technology primarily focuses on single-analyte or class-specific detection, research is advancing toward multiplexed platforms that could simultaneously detect multiple EDCs [50].

Table 1: Comparison of Mainstream Analytical Platforms for Simultaneous EDC Detection

Platform	Key Advantages	Limitations	Best Applications
LC-MS/MS	High sensitivity (ng/L range); Wide linear dynamic range; Multi-analyte capability (50+ compounds); Excellent specificity with MRM; Validated quantitative results	High instrument cost; Requires technical expertise; Extensive sample preparation; Laboratory-bound	Regulatory testing; Epidemiological studies; Biomarker validation; High-precision quantitative analysis
GC-MS	Excellent separation efficiency; Robust compound libraries; Lower instrument cost than LC-MS/MS; High precision for volatile compounds	Requires derivatization for many EDCs; Limited to volatile/thermostable analytes; Longer analysis times	Targeted analysis of volatile EDCs; PAH metabolites; Pesticide residues
Biosensors	Rapid analysis (minutes); Portable for field use; Low cost per test; Minimal sample preparation; High throughput potential	Limited multiplexing capability; Lower sensitivity (μg/L range); Shorter lifespan; Qualitative/semi-quantitative results	Rapid screening; Environmental monitoring; Point-of-care testing; Industrial quality control

Experimental Protocols for LC-MS/MS Multi-Analyte Panels

Sample Preparation and Extraction

The following protocol has been validated for the simultaneous extraction of phthalate metabolites, bisphenols, parabens, and OH-PAHs from urine samples [48] [47] and can be adapted with modifications for other matrices including follicular fluid [52] and breast milk [53]:

• Sample Collection and Preservation: Collect urine in pre-cleaned glass or polypropylene containers. Add antioxidant preservatives (e.g., ascorbic acid) for bisphenol analysis to prevent oxidation. Store at -80°C until analysis.

• Enzymatic Deconjugation: Thaw samples and centrifuge at 10,000 × g for 10 minutes. Transfer 1 mL aliquot to a clean tube. Add internal standard mixture (deuterated analogs of target analytes). Adjust pH to 6.5 with ammonium acetate buffer. Add β-glucuronidase (10 μL, ≥1000 units/mL) and incubate at 37°C for 90 minutes to hydrolyze glucuronide conjugates [47] [52].

• Solid-Phase Extraction: Condition SPE cartridges (Oasis HLB or equivalent) with 3 mL methanol followed by 3 mL deionized water. Load hydrolyzed samples at 1-2 mL/min flow rate. Wash with 3 mL 5% methanol in water. Elute analytes with 2 × 2 mL methanol into glass tubes. Evaporate eluent to dryness under gentle nitrogen stream at 40°C [49] [48].

• Reconstitution: Reconstitute dried extract in 100 μL initial mobile phase (e.g., water/methanol, 95:5, v/v) with vortex mixing for 30 seconds. Transfer to autosampler vials with low-volume inserts for analysis [47].

Figure 1: Experimental workflow for simultaneous multi-analyte EDC extraction and analysis.

Instrumental Analysis Conditions

Chromatographic separation and mass spectrometric detection conditions optimized for simultaneous EDC analysis [49] [48] [47]:

Liquid Chromatography Conditions:

• Column: Poroshell 120 EC-C18 (100 × 4.6 mm, 2.7 μm) or equivalent
• Mobile Phase A: 2 mM ammonium acetate in water
• Mobile Phase B: Methanol or acetonitrile
• Gradient Program: 5% B (0-1 min), 5-95% B (1-10 min), 95% B (10-15 min), 95-5% B (15-16 min), 5% B (16-20 min)
• Flow Rate: 0.4-0.6 mL/min
• Injection Volume: 5-10 μL
• Column Temperature: 40°C

Mass Spectrometry Conditions:

• Ionization Source: Electrospray ionization (ESI) or atmospheric pressure photoionization (APPI) in negative mode for most EDCs
• Source Temperature: 150°C
• Desolvation Temperature: 500°C
• Cone Gas Flow: 50 L/hr
• Desolvation Gas Flow: 1000 L/hr
• Collision Gas: Argon at 0.15 mL/min
• Detection Mode: Multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) with 2-3 transitions per analyte

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Data for Simultaneous EDC Analysis in Biological Matrices

Analyte Class	Representative Analytes	LOD (ng/mL)	LOQ (ng/mL)	Linear Range (ng/mL)	Recovery (%)	Matrix
Phthalate Metabolites	MEHP, MEHHP, MEOHP, MiBP	0.01-0.84	0.1-2.0	0.5-5000	77-109	Urine [48] [47]
Bisphenols	BPA, BPS, BPF	0.06-2.01	0.5-5.0	0.5-5000	63-108	Urine [49] [48]
Parabens	Methyl-, Ethyl-, Propyl-paraben	0.06-0.24	0.2-0.8	0.5-5000	74-97	Urine [48]
OH-PAHs	1-OH-NAP, 2-OH-FLU	0.01-0.15	0.05-0.5	0.1-1000	64-105	Follicular Fluid [52]
PFAS	PFOA, PFOS	0.01-0.05	0.03-0.15	0.05-500	85-115	Serum [50]

Advanced Methodological Considerations

Isomer Separation and Structural Characterization

A significant challenge in simultaneous EDC analysis is the separation of structural isomers that share identical mass transitions but may differ in toxicological potency. Conventional LC-MS/MS methods have achieved success in separating iso-/n-butyl paraben and different phthalate metabolite isomers using specialized chromatographic conditions [48]. The implementation of ultra-high performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) with sub-2μm particle columns has further enhanced resolution capacity while reducing analysis time [48] [47].

For comprehensive structural characterization, high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) platforms such as Q-TOF and Orbitrap instruments provide valuable complementary data. These systems enable non-targeted screening and discovery of novel EDCs or metabolites without prior knowledge of their identity [50]. The combination of targeted MRM quantification with HRMS confirmation represents the most comprehensive approach for simultaneous EDC biomonitoring.

Quality Assurance and Contamination Control

Rigorous quality assurance is essential for reliable EDC quantification due to the ubiquity of background contamination and the low concentrations encountered in biological samples. Key quality control measures include:

• Procedural Blanks: Include at least one blank with each batch of samples to monitor background contamination [52]
• Matrix-Matched Calibration: Prepare calibration standards in the same matrix as samples to account for matrix effects [47]
• Internal Standards: Use stable isotope-labeled analogs for each analyte class to correct for recovery variations and ionization suppression/enhancement [49] [47]
• Quality Control Materials: Include certified reference materials or in-house quality control pools at low, medium, and high concentrations [47]
• Recovery Assessments: Spike samples with known analyte concentrations to verify extraction efficiency [52]

Special attention must be paid to preventing contamination during sample collection and processing. Glassware should be used whenever possible, and plastic materials in the laboratory should be minimized or thoroughly tested for EDC leaching [49].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Simultaneous EDC Analysis

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Notes
β-Glucuronidase	Enzymatic hydrolysis of phase II metabolites	Critical for deconjugating glucuronidated metabolites; Use from E. coli or Helix pomatia [47] [52]
Stable Isotope-Labeled Internal Standards	Quantitation standardization	Correct for matrix effects and recovery variations; Essential for accurate quantification [49] [47]
Mixed-Amode SPE Cartridges	Sample clean-up and analyte concentration	Oasis MAX, Strata-X-AW, or equivalent; Effective for acidic EDCs and metabolites [49] [52]
UHPLC C18 Columns	Chromatographic separation	Sub-2μm particles for enhanced resolution; Extended pH stability preferred [48] [47]
Mass Spectrometry Tuning Solutions	Instrument calibration	Manufacturer-specific solutions for optimal ionization efficiency and mass calibration [47]
Deuterated Surrogate Standards	Recovery correction	Added prior to extraction to monitor method performance; Different from internal standards [50]
Lithium nitrite	Lithium Nitrite | High-Purity Reagent | RUO	High-purity Lithium Nitrite for research applications, including corrosion inhibition & NO chemistry. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.
Cyclohexa-1,2-diene	Cyclohexa-1,2-diene, CAS:14847-23-5, MF:C6H8, MW:80.13 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Analytical Performance and Applications in Exposure Assessment

Real-World Performance and Health Correlations

Validated multi-analyte panels have demonstrated robust performance in large-scale biomonitoring studies, revealing important exposure patterns and health correlations. Studies applying these methods have detected multiple EDC classes in over 90% of participant samples, confirming widespread exposure to chemical mixtures [46] [25]. The quantitative data generated enables sophisticated exposure assessment, including calculation of cumulative risk and identification of exposure hotspots.

Epidemiological applications have revealed significant associations between EDC exposure profiles and health outcomes. For example, the LIFE-PERSUADED project identified correlations between DEHP metabolite levels and cardiometabolic risk factors [47], while studies of follicular fluid have demonstrated associations between specific EDCs and reproductive hormone alterations [52]. These applications highlight the value of comprehensive exposure assessment made possible by simultaneous multi-analyte methods.

Figure 2: Key molecular mechanisms linking EDC exposure to adverse health effects.

Method Validation in Non-Invasive Matrices

The development of simultaneous multi-analyte panels has expanded biomonitoring capabilities for non-invasive sample matrices. Methods validated for urine analysis now achieve detection limits sufficient to quantify EDCs at concentrations relevant to population-based studies [46] [48]. Emerging applications in alternative matrices including hair [53], saliva, and breast milk [53] further demonstrate the versatility of these approaches.

For each matrix, careful validation of pre-analytical factors is essential. Urine typically requires correction for dilution using specific gravity or creatinine [46], while hair analysis must account for external contamination and segmentation for exposure timing assessment [53]. The correlation between EDC concentrations across different matrices remains an active research area, with studies investigating the relationship between urinary biomarkers and concentrations in target tissues like follicular fluid [52].

Simultaneous multi-analyte panels for detecting bisphenols, phthalates, parabens, and PFAS represent a sophisticated solution to the complex challenge of mixed chemical exposure assessment. LC-MS/MS-based methods currently provide the most robust platform for quantitative analysis, offering the sensitivity, specificity, and multi-analyte capability required for comprehensive biomonitoring. While emerging biosensor technologies show promise for specific applications, particularly screening and field-based testing, MS-based approaches remain the reference standard for research and regulatory purposes.

The continued refinement of these analytical panels supports critical advancements in exposure science, enabling more accurate assessment of relationships between EDC mixtures and health outcomes. Future directions will likely focus on expanding the scope of analytes, improving high-throughput capabilities, and enhancing accessibility through cost-reduction strategies. As these methods evolve, they will increasingly inform public health interventions and regulatory decisions aimed at reducing the burden of EDC exposure.

Standardized Protocols for Hair Sample Collection, Storage, and Pre-Analysis Processing

The validation of non-invasive biomonitoring methods is paramount for advancing research on human exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). These man-made substances, which include phthalates, bisphenol A, certain pesticides, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), have the potential to disrupt standard endocrine function and are widespread in the environment due to their frequent use in consumer products [54]. Unlike traditional matrices like blood or urine, which reflect recent exposure, keratinized matrices such as hair provide a unique opportunity for assessing cumulative, long-term exposure to organic pollutants, making them particularly valuable for EDC research [55] [56]. This guide objectively compares the performance of hair analysis against other biological matrices and details the standardized protocols necessary to ensure data quality and reliability in exposure assessment studies.

Matrix Comparison: Hair vs. Urine vs. Other Keratinized Tissues

Selecting the appropriate biological matrix is a critical first step in exposure assessment study design. The following table summarizes the performance of hair in comparison to urine and nails, focusing on key parameters relevant to EDC biomonitoring.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Biological Matrices for EDC Biomonitoring

Parameter	Hair	Urine	Nails
Temporal Representativeness	Long-term (weeks to months, depending on hair length) [56]	Short-term (hours to days) [57]	Long-term (months) [56]
Analyte Scope	Broad spectrum of parent compounds and metabolites (e.g., flame retardants, phthalates, pesticides, fragrances) [55] [57]	Primarily polar metabolites (e.g., dialkyl phosphates) [57]	Similar to hair but less studied; drugs of abuse, pharmaceuticals [56]
Sample Collection	Non-invasive, but requires strict protocol to avoid contamination [58] [59]	Non-invasive, but timing can affect concentration	Non-invasive, but slow growth complicates timing interpretation [56]
Stability of Analytes	High; compounds are stable in the keratin matrix over time [56]	Lower; requires freezing for preservation; susceptible to degradation	High; similar stability to hair [56]
Primary Challenge	Risk of external contamination; requires decontamination protocols [55] [57]	Reflects very recent exposure; high variability in spot samples	Limited reference data; growth and incorporation pathways less understood than hair [56]

Hair analysis offers a distinct advantage for EDC research by capturing a broad exposure window. While urine is the most classically used matrix for assessing exposure to pesticides and other pollutants, it primarily reflects recent exposure from the past hours to days [57]. In contrast, the incorporation of substances into the hair shaft during its growth phase provides a historical record, enabling the assessment of cumulative exposure over weeks to months, which is often more relevant for chronic health effects of EDCs [56]. Furthermore, hair is particularly suited for analyzing the parent compounds of many pollutants, whereas urine typically contains the metabolized forms [57]. Nails, as an alternative keratinized matrix, share some benefits with hair, such as stability and a long detection window, but the science underlying drug incorporation and interpretation is less mature, complicating result analysis [56].

Standardized Protocols for Hair Sample Collection

Proper collection is the most critical step to ensure the metabolic representativeness of the sample and to avoid external contamination. The following protocol synthesizes best practices from leading laboratories.

Pre-Collection Preparation and Sample Type

• Sample Type: Scalp hair is the only recommended source for analysis. Pubic or other body hair should be used only as a last resort if scalp hair is unavailable, and solely for confirming elevated toxic metals found in scalp hair [58] [59].
• Hair Preparation: The hair to be collected should be untreated (not permed, dyed, or bleached). If all hair has been chemically treated, one must wait for sufficient new "virgin" growth (typically 3-4 cm) to emerge for collection. Immediately before collection, hair should be washed with a plain shampoo (not medicated, e.g., anti-dandruff) and thoroughly rinsed to remove external contaminants. It must be free of all gels, oils, and creams [59].
• Decontamination for Research: For occupational or high environmental exposure, special care must be taken to limit exposure between washing and collection. In research settings, laboratories often implement a multi-step washing procedure (e.g., with water and organic solvents like acetone) post-collection to remove external contamination before analysis [55].

Collection Location, Length, and Weight

• Location: The sample should be taken in small portions from at least four to five different locations on the scalp to ensure metabolic representativeness. The recommended areas are the nape of the neck, the posterior vertex, and the posterior temporal regions [58] [59].
• Length and Instrument: Hair should be cut as close to the scalp as possible using high-grade stainless steel scissors or thinning shears. The length of the collected hair should not exceed 1.5 inches (approx. 3-4 cm). The proximal portion (closest to the root) is retained for analysis as it reflects the most recent metabolic activity, and any excess length is discarded [58] [59].
• Weight: The minimum weight required for a comprehensive analysis is 125 milligrams (0.125 grams), which is approximately one full teaspoon. Using laboratory-provided weight scale cards is recommended to ensure sufficient sample mass [58] [59].

Packaging and Storage

• Packaging: Upon cutting, the hair sample should be placed directly into a clean paper envelope. Plastic bags must not be used as they can promote microbial growth and moisture retention. The envelope should be sealed with its glue flap only; staples, paper clips, adhesive tape, or aluminum foil should not be used to seal or secure the specimen [58] [59].
• Storage and Submittal: The paper envelope protects the sample from static electricity and allows it to "breathe." Each sample must be accompanied by a completed laboratory submittal form with all relevant donor information. While not explicitly stated in the results, standard practice is to store samples in a cool, dry place until analysis.

The following workflow diagram summarizes the key steps in the hair sample collection process.

Analytical Methodology and Pre-Analysis Processing

The transition from a collected hair sample to quantifiable data requires rigorous and validated laboratory procedures.

Pre-Analysis Processing: Decontamination and Comminution

Before analytical processing, hair samples undergo critical preparatory steps:

• Decontamination: To address the primary challenge of external contamination, hair samples are typically washed in a series of solvents (e.g., water followed by organic solvents like acetone or hexane) in the laboratory. This step aims to remove surface-adhered pollutants without leaching out the compounds incorporated into the hair shaft [57].
• Pulverization: After washing and drying, the hair is often finely cut or pulverized to increase the surface area, which significantly improves the efficiency of the subsequent extraction steps [57].

Analytical Method for Multi-Class EDCs

A validated multi-class method for the determination of various EDCs in hair by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) has been established [55] [60]. The detailed experimental protocol is as follows:

• Sample Preparation: The preferred sample preparation includes the hydrolysis of hair with trifluoroacetic acid in methanol. This digestion step breaks down the keratin matrix, releasing the incorporated analytes.
• Extraction: This is followed by a liquid-liquid extraction using a mixture of hexane and ethyl acetate to isolate the target compounds from the digestate.
• Analysis: The extract is then analyzed by GC-MS. For a broader spectrum of pollutants, including both non-polar parent compounds and polar metabolites, the extract may be split. One fraction can be analyzed directly using solid-phase microextraction (SPME), while the other may require derivatization (a chemical process that makes polar compounds more amenable to GC analysis) before liquid injection [57].
• Method Performance: This validated method is characterized by recoveries higher than 77% for most analytes, relative standard deviations below 16% (indicating good precision), and limits of detection in the low picogram per milligram range (e.g., 2 pg/mg for the musk fragrance HHCB) using 50 mg of dry hair [55] [60]. The use of internal standards is critical for ensuring precision and accuracy in quantitation [54].

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Hair Analysis of EDCs via GC-MS

Reagent / Material	Function in the Protocol
Trifluoroacetic Acid (in Methanol)	Hydrolyzes and digests the hair keratin matrix to release incorporated analytes [55] [60].
Hexane / Ethyl Acetate Mixture	Serves as the extraction solvent in a liquid-liquid extraction to isolate target EDCs from the aqueous digestate [55] [60].
Deuterated or Stable Isotope-Labeled Internal Standards	Added at the beginning of extraction to correct for variable extraction efficiency and matrix effects, ensuring quantification accuracy [54].
Derivatization Reagents	Chemically modify polar metabolites (e.g., pesticide metabolites) to increase their volatility and thermal stability for GC-MS analysis [57].
Solid Phase Microextraction (SPME) Fibers	Provide a non-liquid solvent-free extraction and concentration technique for direct injection of non-polar compounds into the GC-MS [57].

The following diagram illustrates the core analytical workflow from raw hair sample to data output.

Hair analysis represents a powerful, non-invasive tool for the biomonitoring of chronic exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Its value is demonstrated by its ability to integrate exposures over time and to detect a wide range of parent compounds, as evidenced by studies quantifying phthalates like DEHP and musk fragrances like HHCB in all tested samples [55] [60]. However, the reliability of this matrix is entirely contingent upon the rigorous application of standardized protocols from collection through analysis. Adherence to meticulous collection procedures to avoid contamination, coupled with validated analytical methods that include appropriate decontamination and use of internal standards, is fundamental to generating high-quality, reproducible data. As the field moves forward, the continued standardization and validation of these methods will be crucial for establishing hair as a robust matrix for EDC exposure assessment, ultimately strengthening the scientific basis for public health decisions.

Human biomonitoring (HBM) serves as a critical tool for assessing population exposure to environmental contaminants by measuring the chemicals themselves, their metabolites, or reaction products in human specimens [61]. In urban environments, where populations face complex mixtures of environmental stressors, biomonitoring provides integrated exposure measures from all pathways, including inhalation, dietary intake, and dermal contact [62]. Traditional biomonitoring approaches have relied heavily on invasive sample collection, primarily blood, which presents ethical and practical challenges, particularly for vulnerable populations and large-scale studies [39]. This has accelerated the validation and application of non-invasive matrices—such as urine, saliva, and hair—that offer ethical sampling, cost efficiency, and often toxicological relevance comparable to invasive methods [63] [39]. This guide examines recent case studies from urban populations to objectively compare the performance of non-invasive methodologies against conventional approaches, providing researchers with validated protocols for endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC) exposure assessment.

Comparative Performance of Biomonitoring Matrices

Analytical Characteristics of Featured Studies

The table below summarizes the core characteristics and performance metrics of recent urban biomonitoring studies, highlighting the application of both conventional and innovative matrices.

Table 1: Performance comparison of biomonitoring matrices from recent urban population studies

Matrix	Target Analytes	Population (Location)	Analytical Method	Key Performance Metrics	Reference
Serum/Blood	Zn, Cu, Mn, Cd, As	Healthy urban population (Türkiye)	ICP-MS	Cd levels significantly affected by smoking (p<0.01); Zn showed gender-based differences (p<0.05)	[64]
Serum	BDE-209 (PBDEs)	General population (Guangzhou)	GC/MS	Average BDE-209 level: 119.82 ng/L; transportation workers showed highest exposure	[65]
Urine	Phthalate metabolites	General population (Various)	Isotope-dilution MS	Successfully monitored short-lived chemicals; creatinine correction applied	[61]
Saliva	Xenobiotics	Model-based assessment	Computational PK modeling	Correlates with blood concentrations; enables real-time, repeated sampling	[63]
Hair	Metals, organic pollutants	General population	MS-based techniques	Provides historical exposure data (≈1 cm/month growth); integrates exposure over months	[39]

Operational Characteristics of Biomonitoring Matrices

Beyond analytical performance, practical considerations significantly influence matrix selection for urban population studies. The following table compares key operational factors.

Table 2: Operational characteristics of biomonitoring matrices for urban population studies

Matrix	Sampling Ethics & Participant Burden	Cost & Technical Requirements	Temporal Resolution	Primary Applications
Serum/Blood	High burden; invasive; requires medical personnel	High cost; specialized equipment and training	Short-term (hours to days)	Gold standard for lipophilic compounds; clinical correlation	[64] [39]
Urine	Minimal burden; non-invasive; home collection possible	Low cost; minimal training needed	Recent exposure (hours)	Metabolites of short-half-life compounds; high-volume sampling	[39] [61]
Saliva	Minimal burden; well-accepted; suitable for children	Low cost; potential for point-of-care devices	Real-time monitoring	Free, unbound fraction of chemicals; therapeutic drug monitoring	[63]
Hair	Minimal burden; aesthetic considerations	Moderate cost; contamination control crucial	Long-term (weeks to months)	Historical exposure reconstruction; cumulative exposures	[39]
Breast Milk	Moderate burden; limited to lactating women	Moderate cost; requires special storage	Lactation period exposure	Infant exposure assessment; lipophilic persistent compounds	[39]

Detailed Experimental Protocols from Case Studies

Serum Biomonitoring of Trace Elements in Turkish Urban Population

The 2025 study of a healthy urban Turkish population established reference values for trace elements using rigorous methodology [64].

Population Recruitment: Researchers enrolled healthy individuals living in the same urban region without known occupational or other specific exposures, creating a representative sample of the urban population.

Sample Collection: Venous blood samples were collected using standardized phlebotomy procedures. Serum was separated through centrifugation and stored at -80°C until analysis to preserve sample integrity.

Analytical Protocol:

• Sample Preparation: Serum samples were subjected to appropriate dilution and acid digestion to prepare for analysis.
• Instrumentation: Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) was employed for multi-element analysis.
• Quality Control: Method accuracy was verified using certified reference materials, and precision was monitored through replicate analyses.
• Statistical Analysis: Data analysis included descriptive statistics, t-tests for gender comparisons, and ANOVA for age-related trends, with statistical significance set at p<0.05.

Key Findings: The study demonstrated statistically significant associations between age and manganese/arsenic levels, smoking and cadmium accumulation, and gender-specific differences in zinc levels, establishing crucial reference values for the Turkish population [64].

Saliva-Based Biomonitoring Development Protocol

Saliva represents a promising non-invasive matrix, though method validation requires careful implementation [63].

Establishing Blood-Saliva Correlation:

• In Vitro Modeling: Use serous-acinar Transwell model systems to screen chemicals for salivary uptake and clearance kinetics.
• Computational Modeling: Develop physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models to predict saliva/blood concentration relationships across different life stages.
• Validation: Collect matched blood-saliva samples from human subjects to verify predicted correlations.

Sensor Development for Salivary Biomarkers:

• Assay Platform Selection: Develop multiplex microsensor platforms capable of measuring multiple analytes simultaneously in small saliva volumes.
• Performance Validation: Validate sensor performance against gold-standard analytical methods (e.g., LC-MS/MS) including assessment of limit of detection, quantification, linearity, and reproducibility.
• Real-Time Application: Deploy validated sensors for field use, enabling point-of-care biomonitoring with rapid results [63].

Research Reagent Solutions for Biomonitoring Studies

Table 3: Essential research reagents and materials for biomonitoring studies

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Examples
ICP-MS System	Precise multi-element analysis at trace concentrations	Measurement of trace elements (Zn, Cu, Mn, Cd, As) in serum [64]
GC/MS System	Separation and quantification of volatile organic compounds	Analysis of PBDE congeners in serum samples [65]
Certified Reference Materials	Quality control and method validation	Verification of analytical accuracy for trace element analysis [64]
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA)	Protein biomarker quantification	Measurement of protein biomarkers in blood or saliva [66]
Polyacrylamide Gel Electrophoresis	Nucleic acid separation and verification	Validation of nucleic acid targets in fluorescence assays [67]
Passive Samplers (Silicone Wristbands)	Time-integrated sampling of environmental contaminants	Personal exposure monitoring for SVOCs [62]
Stable Isotope-Labeled Internal Standards	Quantification accuracy in mass spectrometry	Phthalate metabolite measurement in urine [61]

Visualizing Experimental Workflows

Non-Invasive Biomonitoring Research Pathway

The following diagram illustrates the integrated workflow for developing and validating non-invasive biomonitoring methods:

Biomarker Response Pathway

This diagram outlines the pathway from exposure to measurable biomarker response:

Discussion and Future Perspectives

Recent urban biomonitoring studies demonstrate that non-invasive matrices can effectively complement and sometimes substitute for traditional blood-based monitoring, particularly for assessing community-level exposures to environmental contaminants [39]. The case studies highlighted in this guide reveal that matrix selection involves trade-offs between ethical considerations, analytical performance, and interpretation capability.

Future directions in urban population biomonitoring include the development of multiplex sensor platforms capable of quantifying both exposure and biological response biomarkers in readily obtainable biofluids like saliva [63]. Additionally, citizen science approaches using passive samplers such as silicone wristbands and vacuum cleaner dust offer promising strategies for large-scale exposure assessment while minimizing ethical concerns [62]. The integration of computational modeling with biomonitoring data will further enhance our ability to back-calculate exposure sources and inform targeted public health interventions [63].

For researchers designing urban biomonitoring studies, particularly for EDC exposure assessment, we recommend a complementary matrix approach that strategically combines non-invasive methods for large-scale screening with targeted invasive sampling for validation and deeper toxicological investigation. This balanced methodology maximizes ethical compliance while generating scientifically robust exposure data for environmental public health decision-making.

Overcoming Analytical Hurdles: Matrix Effects, Sensitivity, and Real-World Implementation

Mitigating Matrix Effects in Complex Biological Samples like Urine and Semen

The accurate measurement of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in non-invasive biological samples like urine and semen is crucial for exposure assessment research. However, the complex composition of these matrices presents significant analytical challenges, primarily due to matrix effects [68]. Matrix effects are defined as the combined influence of all sample components other than the analyte on its measurement, potentially causing ionization suppression or enhancement in mass spectrometry-based detection methods [68] [69]. These effects can lead to inaccurate quantification, reduced sensitivity, and compromised data reliability, ultimately threatening the validity of biomonitoring studies [69] [70].

Within the context of EDC research, where chemicals often occur at trace levels amidst complex biological backgrounds, mitigating matrix effects becomes paramount for generating meaningful exposure data. This guide objectively compares current approaches for managing matrix effects, providing experimental data and protocols to support method validation in non-invasive biomonitoring matrices.

Understanding and Assessing Matrix Effects

Origins and Impact

Matrix effects originate from competition for ionization, changes in electrospray droplet formation, or chemical interactions between the analyte and co-eluting matrix components [68] [70]. In biological samples, common culprits include phospholipids, salts, lipids, proteins, and countless other endogenous metabolites [68] [69]. The impact can be substantial; one study documented a -38.4% quantitative bias in urinary 2-methylhippuric acid measurement when an inappropriate internal standard was used [71].

Matrix effects are typically categorized as:

• Absolute Matrix Effect: The difference between the analytical response for an analyte in standard solution versus in a biological matrix [68].
• Relative Matrix Effect: Variation of absolute matrix effects between different lots of the same matrix type, particularly critical when working with diverse sample populations [68].

Assessment Methodologies

Robust assessment protocols are essential for validating any analytical method. The following table summarizes quantitative approaches for evaluating matrix effects:

Table 1: Methods for Quantitative Assessment of Matrix Effects

Method	Procedure	Calculation	Interpretation
Signal-Based [70]	Measure analyte response in matrix vs. solvent at one concentration.	%ME = (Signal_matrix / Signal_solvent) × 100	%ME < 100%: Suppression%ME > 100%: Enhancement
Calibration-Based [70]	Plot calibration curves in both matrix and solvent.	%ME = (Slope_matrix / Slope_solvent) × 100	Evaluates effect across concentration range; identifies concentration-dependent effects.
Spike and Recovery [70]	Add known analyte amount to sample matrix and measure recovery.	%Recovery = (Observed / Expected) × 100	Recovery ≠ 100% indicates presence of matrix effects or recovery issues.

The following workflow diagram illustrates the logical process for assessing and diagnosing matrix effects in an analytical method:

Comparative Analysis of Mitigation Strategies

Internal Standard Selection: Deuterated vs. Non-Deuterated

The choice of internal standard (IS) is one of the most critical factors in compensating for matrix effects. Stable isotope-labeled internal standards (SIL-ISs) are the gold standard, but the type of label significantly impacts performance [71].

Table 2: Experimental Comparison of Internal Standard Types for Urinary Biomarkers

Parameter	Deuterated IS ([²H])	Non-Deuterated IS ([¹³C], [¹⁵N])
Chromatographic Elution	Slightly earlier retention time (RT) vs. analyte [71]	Co-elutes with target analyte [71]
Compensation for Matrix Effects	May not experience same ion suppression as analyte [71]	Experiences same ion suppression/enhancement as analyte [71]
Experimental Result (2MHA)	Negative bias of -38.4% in spike recovery tests [71]	No significant bias observed in spike recovery tests [71]
Quantitative Bias (2MHA)	Concentrations 59.2% lower than those from [¹³C] IS [71]	Used as reference for accurate quantification [71]
Cost & Availability	Frequently used, more affordable [71]	Less frequently used, can be more costly [71]

Experimental data from an LC-ESI-MS/MS assay for urinary xylene metabolites demonstrated that the deuterated IS (2MHA-[²H₇]) eluted slightly earlier (RT: 5.15 min) than the native analyte (RT: 5.18 min) and the carbon-13 IS (2MHA-[¹³C₆], RT: 5.18 min) [71]. This chromatographic separation caused the deuterated IS to experience different ion suppression, leading to a substantial negative bias that was not observed with the co-eluting carbon-13 IS [71].

Sample Preparation and Chromatographic Techniques

Beyond internal standards, sample preparation and separation are frontline defenses against matrix effects.

Table 3: Comparison of Sample Preparation and Instrumental Mitigation Strategies

Strategy	Mechanism	Effectiveness	Limitations
Selective Extraction (SPE, LLE) [69] [70]	Removes interfering phospholipids and proteins.	High; can significantly reduce matrix components.	Adds complexity, time, and cost; potential for analyte loss.
Matrix Minimization (Dilution) [70]	Reduces concentration of interferents.	Moderate; depends on available analytical sensitivity.	Not feasible for trace-level analytes; may dilute analyte below LOQ.
Chromatographic Optimization [69]	Increases separation to prevent co-elution.	High; addresses root cause of ESI matrix effects.	Requires method development time; may increase run times.
Change Ionization Source (ESI to APCI) [68]	Uses gas-phase ionization, less susceptible to matrix.	Varies; can reduce certain suppression effects.	Not suitable for non-volatile or thermally labile compounds.

The following workflow diagram integrates these mitigation strategies into a comprehensive analytical development process:

Experimental Protocols for Key Methodologies

Post-Column Infusion for Qualitative Matrix Effect Mapping

This protocol helps visualize regions of ion suppression/enhancement throughout the chromatographic run [68].

Materials: LC system coupled to MS, syringe pump, analytical column, blank biological matrix (e.g., urine/semen from pooled donors). Procedure:

• Inject a processed blank matrix extract into the LC system.
• Simultaneously, use a syringe pump to post-column infuse a solution of the target analyte at a constant rate.
• The MS monitors the signal of the infused analyte throughout the chromatographic run.
• A stable signal indicates no matrix effect. A dip in the signal indicates ion suppression at that retention time, while a peak indicates ion enhancement.

Quantitative Evaluation Using Spike and Recovery

This protocol quantitatively measures the impact of the matrix on analyte recovery [70].

Materials: Blank matrix, analyte stock solution, appropriate SIL-IS. Procedure:

• Prepare three sets of samples:
  • Set A (Neat Standard): Analyte in solvent.
  • Set B (Pre-Extraction Spike): Analyte added to blank matrix before sample preparation.
  • Set C (Post-Extraction Spike): Analyte added to blank matrix extract after sample preparation.
• Process all sets and analyze by LC-MS/MS.
• Calculate key parameters:
  • Matrix Effect (ME): %ME = (Peak Area of Set C / Peak Area of Set A) × 100
  • Extraction Recovery (RE): %RE = (Peak Area of Set B / Peak Area of Set C) × 100
  • Process Efficiency (PE): %PE = (Peak Area of Set B / Peak Area of Set A) × 100

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful mitigation of matrix effects requires specific high-quality reagents and materials. The following table details key solutions for method development.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Mitigating Matrix Effects

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Note
Stable Isotope-Labeled IS ([¹³C], [¹⁵N])	Corrects for variability in sample prep and ionization; gold standard for compensation [71].	Select an IS that co-elutes chromatographically with the target analyte for optimal compensation [71].
LC-MS Grade Solvents	Minimize background interference and chemical noise from impurities in solvents and water.	Essential for preparing mobile phases and sample reconstitution solutions.
Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE) Cartridges	Selectively retain analytes or remove interfering phospholipids and proteins from the sample [69] [70].	Choose sorbent chemistry (e.g., C18, ion-exchange) based on the physicochemical properties of the target EDCs.
High-Purity Buffers & Additives	Ensure consistent chromatographic performance and ionization efficiency.	Avoid non-volatile buffers (e.g., phosphate) which can clog the MS source and cause suppression.
Blank Biological Matrix	Serves as a control for method development and assessment of matrix effects [70].	Use pooled matrix from multiple donors to account for natural variability.
2,2'-Bi-1H-pyrrole, 4-methoxy-5-((5-undecyl-2H-pyrrol-2-ylidene)methyl)-	Prodigiosin 25C	Prodigiosin 25C is an antibiotic for research, shown to preferentially suppress cytotoxic T-cells. This product is For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.
Cobalt diperchlorate	Cobalt Diperchlorate

Mitigating matrix effects is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor but requires a strategic, integrated approach. The experimental data presented demonstrates that the careful selection of non-deuterated stable isotope-labeled internal standards is perhaps the single most impactful factor for accurate quantification, more so than deuterated standards which can introduce significant quantitative bias [71]. This strategy must be combined with selective sample preparation and optimized chromatography to effectively manage the complex matrices of urine and semen [69] [70].

For EDC exposure assessment research relying on these non-invasive samples, such rigorous validation is indispensable. It ensures that reported concentrations truly reflect exposure levels, forming a reliable foundation for investigating links between EDCs and health outcomes. By adopting the comparative strategies and experimental protocols outlined in this guide, researchers can significantly enhance the reliability of their biomonitoring data.

In the field of environmental health, particularly in the assessment of human exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs), biomonitoring has become an indispensable tool. Unlike measures of contaminants in air, water, or food, biomonitoring results are intrinsically associated with a person, carrying far greater potential to generate concern and action [72]. The complexity of biological matrices like urine presents a significant analytical challenge: a huge presence of endogenous compounds at concentrations far higher than the target synthetic chemicals [40]. Effective sample preparation must therefore strike a delicate balance—maximizing analytical sensitivity to detect trace-level contaminants while maintaining practicality and robustness for application in real-world studies.

This guide objectively compares the performance of different sample preparation approaches, with a specific focus on the optimization of sample and dilution volumes, a critical yet often overlooked step. The content is framed within a broader thesis on validating non-invasive biomonitoring methods, using recent research on EDCs in urine as a primary case study.

Before delving into volume optimization, it is essential to understand the spectrum of sample preparation techniques available. The choice of method directly influences the required sample volume, the extent of matrix depletion, and the resulting sensitivity of the assay.

Table 1: Comparison of Common LC-MS/MS Sample Preparation Techniques

Protocol	Analyte Concentration?	Relative Cost	Relative Complexity	Relative Matrix Depletion
Dilution	No	Low	Simple	Less
Protein Precipitation (PPT)	No	Low	Simple	Least
Phospholipid Removal (PLR)	No	High	Relatively Simple	Moreâ€
Liquid-Liquid Extraction (LLE)	Yes	Low	Complex	More
Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE)	Yes	High	Complex	More
QuEChERS	Yes	Low	Relatively Simple	More

† Phospholipids and precipitated proteins are removed, but not other matrix components. Adapted from [73].

For non-invasive biomonitoring, where sample availability can be limited (e.g., urine from children or serial sampling), techniques that require lower sample volumes and offer a favorable balance between cost, complexity, and clean-up efficiency are highly desirable. QuEChERS exemplifies this balance, requiring a lower sample volume and less extensive extraction procedure while using cost-effective materials [40].

Case Study: Optimizing Volumes for EDC Analysis in Urine

A 2025 study provides a definitive example of the systematic optimization of sample and dilution volumes for the simultaneous analysis of EDCs (organophosphate esters, phthalates, and parabens) in human urine using a QuEChERS clean-up approach [40].

Experimental Protocol for Volume Optimization

The researchers rigorously optimized the sample preparation through a structured experiment:

• Sample Volumes Evaluated: 2 mL and 5 mL of human urine.
• Final Dilution Volumes Evaluated: 100 µL, 500 µL, and 1000 µL.
• Experimental Matrix: This resulted in six distinct combinations for testing (e.g., 2 mL–100 µL; 5 mL–1000 µL).
• Assessment Criteria: The key parameter for comparison was the matrix effect, quantitatively assessed by comparing the analyte signal in the prepared urine sample to the signal in a pure standard solution. A lower matrix effect indicates more effective removal of interfering compounds [40].

This protocol provides a replicable framework for other laboratories to optimize methods for different analyte-matrix combinations.

Performance Data and Comparison

The outcomes of this optimization demonstrate the direct impact of volume selection on method performance. The table below summarizes the key validation data reported for the optimized method, which utilized a 2 mL sample volume [40].

Table 2: Key Validation Parameters of the Optimized QuEChERS Method for EDCs in Urine

Performance Parameter	Result	Implication for Method Quality
Linearity (R²)	> 0.99 for all analytes	Excellent quantitative reliability across the calibration range.
Method Detection Limits (MDL)	0.01 – 0.33 ng/mL	High sensitivity, capable of detecting trace-level exposures.
Limit of Quantification (LOQ)	0.03 – 1.08 ng/mL	Reliable quantification at very low concentrations.
Accuracy	67 – 99%	Good recovery of analytes through the sample preparation process.
Precision (Inter-/Intra-day)	< 20% for most analytes	High reproducibility and repeatability of measurements.

The study successfully applied this optimized method to 39 human urine samples, detecting all three EDC groups in 100% of the samples, thereby confirming its practical utility for population-level exposure assessment [40].

The Optimization Workflow: From Volume Selection to Data

The process of balancing sensitivity and practicality through volume optimization can be visualized as a logical workflow where decisions at one stage directly impact the outcomes at the next.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

The following table details key reagents and materials essential for implementing the described QuEChERS-based optimization protocol for EDC biomonitoring [40].

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for EDC Biomonitoring

Item	Function / Application	Specific Examples
Analytical Standards	Quantification of target analytes and metabolites; used for calibration.	BDCIPP, DEP (OPEs); MMP, MEP (Phthalates); 4-HB, 3,4-DHB (Parabens) [40].
Isotope-Labeled Internal Standards	Critical for correcting for matrix effects and losses during sample preparation.	d10-BDCIPP, d4-MMP, 13C6−4-HB [40].
QuEChERS Salt Kits	Extraction salt mixture for partitioning and clean-up.	SALT-Kit-AC2 (containing MgSO4, NaCl) [40].
β-Glucuronidase Enzyme	Deconjugation of phase II metabolites (e.g., glucuronides) to free forms for analysis.	Lyophilized powder from E. coli [40].
HPLC-Grade Solvents	Sample preparation, extraction, and mobile phase for LC-MS/MS.	Acetonitrile, Methanol, Water for trace analysis [40].
Volatile Modifiers	Acidification of LC mobile phase to improve chromatography and ionization.	Formic Acid, Acetic Acid (≥ 98%) [40].
Acetylpheneturide	Acetylpheneturide, CAS:13402-08-9, MF:C13H16N2O3, MW:248.28 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Erbium tribromide	Erbium tribromide, CAS:13536-73-7, MF:Br3Er, MW:406.97 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The strategic optimization of sample and dilution volumes is not a mere procedural detail but a fundamental aspect of developing robust, sensitive, and practical biomonitoring methods. As demonstrated in the featured case study, a systematic approach to this balance allows researchers to effectively manage matrix effects—a major constraint in LC-MS/MS analysis [73]—without sacrificing the sensitivity needed to detect environmentally relevant concentrations of EDCs.

This balance is paramount for advancing the thesis of non-invasive biomonitoring, enabling reliable exposure assessment in large population studies with implications for public health. The protocols and data presented here provide a benchmark for comparing and validating future methods in this critical field.

Addressing Contamination Risks During Non-Invasive Sample Collection and Handling

Non-invasive sampling methods have emerged as vital tools for assessing human exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), aligning with ethical research principles and enabling broader participant recruitment [74]. Unlike blood and urine, which reflect short-term exposure, non-invasive matrices like hair provide a larger exposure window, capturing cumulative exposure to EDCs that may present short half-lives in traditional biofluids [74]. However, the reliability of data generated from these methods depends overwhelmingly on effectively managing contamination risks throughout the collection and handling pipeline. Contamination can originate from external environmental sources, improper handling by researchers, or cross-contamination between samples, potentially compromising study validity [74] [75]. This guide objectively compares contamination risks and mitigation strategies across major non-invasive sample types, providing researchers with evidence-based protocols to validate methods for EDC exposure assessment.

Comparative Analysis of Contamination Risks and Mitigation Strategies

The risk profile and optimal handling protocol vary significantly across different non-invasive sample types. The following table summarizes key contamination characteristics and evidence-based mitigation strategies derived from experimental studies.

Table 1: Contamination Risks and Mitigation in Non-Invasive Sample Types

Sample Type	Primary Contamination Risks	Documented Contamination/Error Rates	Key Mitigation Strategies	Supported Evidence
Hair	External contamination from air, personal care products, handling [74].	Specific rates for EDCs not fully quantified; noted as a "main limitation" [74].	Use of relevant decontamination processes; standardized washing protocols; analysis of segmented hair sections [74].	Literature review on EDC biomonitoring [74].
Passive eDNA Samplers	Cross-contamination between samples; handling during deployment/retrieval [76].	Varies significantly with material and time; can achieve yields comparable to active filtration [76].	Use of sterile gloves and equipment; immediate preservation in LifeGuard solution; deployment controls [76].	Field study on marine invasive species detection [76].
Buccal (Cheek) Swabs	Contamination by food/drink; microbial growth; handler DNA [75].	Easily avoided with proper collection; microorganism growth can degrade DNA [75].	Avoid eating/drinking 30 min prior; use sterile gloves; air-dry swabs in paper envelopes (not plastic) [75].	DNA testing service laboratory protocols [75].
Self-Administered Vaginal Swabs	Improper self-collection technique; low sensitivity compared to clinician-collected samples.	Sensitivity of 63.9% vs. clinician-directed cytobrush [77].	Clear, illustrated instructions for participants; high-acceptance rate (97.1%) supports proper use [77].	Community-based study on HPV detection (n=210) [77].
Bladder Stimulation for Infant Urine	Contamination from skin flora during collection.	Contamination rate of 5% demonstrated, comparable to invasive catheterization (8-14%) [78].	Genital cleaning with 2% castile soap; midstream clean-catch technique [78].	Randomized multicenter clinical trial [78].

Experimental Protocols for Contamination Control

Protocol: Hair Sample Collection and Decontamination for EDC Analysis

The analysis of EDCs in hair requires stringent procedures to distinguish internal exposure from external contamination [74].

• Sample Collection: Collect hair strands (ideally ~200-500 mg) by cutting as close to the scalp as possible from the posterior vertex region of the head. Use clean stainless steel scissors and wear powder-free nitrile gloves. Secure the sample with aluminum foil and store in a clean paper envelope at room temperature [74].
• Decontamination Wash Sequence: To remove externally deposited contaminants, sequentially wash the hair sample with appropriate solvents. A standard protocol involves washing first with a 2:1 v/v mixture of acetone and n-hexane for 10 minutes, followed by a second wash with ultrapure water for 5 minutes. Each wash step should involve gentle agitation. The wash solvents should be analyzed separately to quantify and correct for external contamination [74].
• Digestion and Extraction: After washing and drying, the hair sample is pulverized into a fine powder. The internal EDCs are then extracted using a suitable organic solvent (e.g., methanol) via solid-liquid extraction, often assisted by sonication or agitation over several hours [74].
• Analysis: The extract is concentrated, reconstituted, and analyzed typically using off-line LC-MS/MS, which remains the primary technique for quantifying EDCs in hair due to its high sensitivity and specificity [74].

Protocol: Passive eDNA Sampler Deployment for Aquatic Biomonitoring

Passive samplers provide a cost-effective, non-invasive method for capturing environmental DNA, but their efficiency and contamination risk are influenced by deployment time and material [76].

• Sampler Preparation: In a clean lab environment, attach various substrate materials (e.g., nylon filters, charged nylon discs, artificial sponges) to a sampling apparatus using sterile techniques. Include field controls (blanks) by briefly exposing materials to the air at the deployment site before immediate preservation [76].
• Field Deployment: Deploy the sampler apparatus approximately 1 meter below the water surface. Use a replicated design with multiple substrates and retrieval time points (e.g., 10 min, 30 min, 1 h, 3 h, 6 h, 12 h) to optimize for target organisms and minimize irrelevant DNA capture [76].
• Sample Retrieval and Preservation: Upon retrieval, immediately submerge each substrate in LifeGuard Soil Preservation Solution or similar DNA-stabilizing buffer in pre-labeled tubes. Transport samples on ice and store at -80°C until DNA extraction [76].
• Laboratory Processing: Extract DNA using a modified DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit protocol, which includes a mechanical lysis step with zirconia/silica beads to maximize DNA yield from the substrate materials [76].

Visual Workflow: Contamination Control Pathway for Non-Invasive Samples

The following diagram illustrates the critical decision points and actions for minimizing contamination across the lifecycle of a non-invasive sample, from collection to analysis.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Successful non-invasive biomonitoring requires specific materials to preserve sample integrity from collection to analysis. The following table details key research reagent solutions and their functions.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Non-Invasive Sample Handling

Reagent/Material	Primary Function	Application Examples
LifeGuard Soil Preservation Solution	Preserves DNA at ambient temperatures by stabilizing cellular structure and inhibiting nucleases [76].	Immediate preservation of passive eDNA samplers (filters, sponges) after field retrieval [76].
2% Castile Soap Solution	Gentle, effective cleaning of skin to reduce microbial flora contamination during sample collection [78].	Genital cleaning prior to non-invasive bladder stimulation for infant urine collection [78].
Acetone-n-Hexane Wash Solvent	Decontamination of hair samples by dissolving and removing externally deposited lipophilic contaminants [74].	Sequential washing of hair samples prior to digestion and analysis for EDCs [74].
ATL Buffer & Proteinase K	Cell lysis and protein digestion during DNA extraction, breaking down tissues to release nucleic acids [76].	First step in DNA extraction from buccal swabs, eDNA filters, and other biological materials [76].
Zirconia/Silica Beads	Mechanical disruption of tough cellular or tissue structures during homogenization for DNA extraction [76].	Bead-beating step for lysing cells from cheek swabs or breaking down eDNA filter biofilms [76].

Validating non-invasive biomonitoring methods for EDCs requires a foundational understanding of sample-specific contamination risks and the rigorous application of targeted mitigation protocols. As evidenced by comparative studies, contamination rates can be reduced to levels comparable with invasive methods, such as the 5% contamination rate achieved for bladder-stimulated infant urine [78]. The ongoing challenge for researchers is the lack of complete international harmonization in decontamination and analytical procedures, particularly for emerging matrices like hair [74]. Future work must focus on standardizing these protocols and further validating passive sampler materials and deployment times to ensure that non-invasive methods continue to provide reliable, sensitive, and ethically sound data for global EDC exposure assessment.

The accurate measurement of Endocrine-Drupting Compounds (EDCs) in biological matrices represents a cornerstone of modern exposure science and environmental health research. EDCs comprise a structurally diverse group of artificially synthesized exogenous chemicals—including phthalates, perchlorates, phenols, heavy metals, furans, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—with the potential to disrupt the natural function of the endocrine system by interfering with hormone synthesis, secretion, transport, metabolism, and binding [50] [79]. The reliable biomonitoring of these compounds, particularly through non-invasive methods, is essential for understanding exposure-disease relationships and informing public health interventions.

Analyte stability presents a preeminent challenge in this field, especially for compounds with inherently short half-lives. Instability is more the rule than the exception in bioanalytics, as decomposition influences both the trueness and precision of analytical procedures [80]. The stability of an EDC must be ensured throughout the entire analytical lifecycle: during sample collection, processing, storage, handling, extraction, and the final analysis. Factors such as matrix type, access to oxygen, temperature fluctuations, and light exposure can dramatically alter degradation rates [80]. For short-half-life compounds, this challenge is exacerbated, as even minor deviations from optimal handling conditions can result in significant analyte loss and compromised data quality. This guide objectively compares stabilization approaches across different matrices and analytical platforms to identify optimal strategies for ensuring data reliability in EDC biomonitoring research.

Stability Challenges of Short-Half-Life EDCs

Fundamental Stability Concepts and Definitions

Analyte stability is defined as the constancy of an analyte's concentration in a sample over a specified time period under defined storage conditions. A decrease in concentration signifies instability, which directly impacts analytical accuracy [80]. For EDCs with short half-lives, such as certain phenolic compounds, specific pesticide metabolites, and reactive oxidative products, this degradation can occur within minutes to hours, necessitating rigorous stabilization protocols.

The lipophilic nature of many persistent EDCs allows them to be retained in adipose tissues, leading to prolonged residence times in living organisms [50]. However, this characteristic does not necessarily translate to stability in ex-vivo biological matrices post-collection. Once removed from their biological environment, these compounds become susceptible to various degradation pathways, including enzymatic breakdown, oxidative damage, and photochemical degradation.

Key Factors Influencing EDC Stability

• Temporal Factors: The short half-lives of many EDCs create narrow windows for reliable detection. For instance, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), while a pharmaceutical, exemplifies this challenge with a half-life of merely 15 minutes in wet blood, making accurate measurement highly dependent on precise sampling timing [81].

• Matrix Composition: Biological matrices contain diverse components—including salts, carbohydrates, lipids, peptides, and metabolites—that can catalyze degradation reactions or directly interact with target analytes [82]. Phospholipids, in particular, are known to cause significant matrix effects in bioanalytical methods [82].

• Environmental Conditions: Exposure to heat, UV light, oxygen, and microbial activity can dramatically accelerate EDC degradation. DNA in environmental samples degrades quickly under these conditions, limiting the temporal window for species detection via eDNA analysis [83].

• Structural Characteristics: Some EDCs, including certain prostaglandins and leukotrienes, are highly susceptible to non-enzymatic hydrolysis under physiological conditions, necessitating specialized handling approaches [84].

Comparative Analysis of Biological Matrices for EDC Biomonitoring

The selection of an appropriate biological matrix is pivotal for successful EDC biomonitoring, as each matrix presents distinct advantages and challenges concerning analyte stability, representativeness of exposure, and practical collection considerations.

Table 1: Comparison of Biological Matrices for Short-Half-Life EDC Biomonitoring

Matrix	Stability Challenges	Stabilization Strategies	Suitability for Short-Half-Life EDCs
Blood/Plasma	Susceptible to enzymatic degradation; 5-FU has 15-min half-life in wet blood [81]	Cold chain transport (<-30°C); VAMS microsampling; protein precipitation [81]	Moderate (requires immediate processing/stabilization)
Urine	Metabolic changes; bacterial contamination; pH variability [85]	Acid/enzymatic hydrolysis; freezing at -20°C; addition of preservatives [79]	High (particularly for polar metabolites)
Saliva	Enzyme activity; bacterial content; dilution variability	Cold storage; enzyme inhibitors; rapid processing	Moderate (limited stability data for many EDCs)
Breast Milk	High lipid content; enzymatic activity; oxidation risks [86]	Freezing at -80°C; antioxidant addition (BHT); nitrogen atmosphere [84]	Variable (compound-dependent)
Dried Blood Spots (VAMS)	Potential oxidative degradation; hematocrit effects	Controlled drying; desiccant addition; stable temp storage [81]	High (excellent for unstable drugs like 5-FU)
Hair	External contamination; low analyte concentrations	Rigorous washing protocols; segmentation analysis	Low (better for cumulative exposure assessment)

Invasive vs. Non-Invasive Matrices

Non-invasive matrices such as urine, saliva, and hair offer practical advantages for biomonitoring studies, particularly in vulnerable populations and large-scale epidemiological research [85]. However, the stability profiles of short-half-life EDCs in these matrices may differ significantly from traditional blood-based approaches. While blood remains the ideal matrix for many chemicals due to its equilibrium with organs and tissues, its invasive nature and stability challenges for certain EDCs have motivated the exploration of alternative matrices [85].

The presence of a chemical in a non-invasive matrix indicates exposure, but correlations between levels in these matrices and blood must be established to ensure measurements reflect total body burden [85]. For short-half-life compounds, non-invasive matrices may actually offer superior stability in some cases, as drying technologies can effectively "pause" degradation processes that would continue in liquid matrices.

The Promise of Novel Microsampling Approaches

Volumetric Absorptive Microsampling (VAMS) technology represents a significant advancement for stabilizing short-half-life EDCs. This approach has demonstrated remarkable stability for unstable compounds like 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine, with studies showing samples stable for:

• 9 months at room temperature
• 2 years at -30°C
• 3 days at 50°C [81]

This technology effectively addresses the cold chain logistics challenge, which can be impractical in low-resource regions or remote sampling scenarios. Additionally, microsampling requires smaller sample volumes (10-50 μL compared to 1-10 mL for venous blood), making it particularly valuable for pediatric populations or studies requiring frequent sampling for pharmacokinetic assessments [81].

Analytical Techniques to Overcome Stability Challenges

Advanced Chromatographic Approaches

Innovative separation techniques have emerged to address the stability challenge by radically reducing analysis time, thereby minimizing opportunities for pre-analytical degradation.

Table 2: Analytical Techniques for Rapid Analysis of Short-Half-Life EDCs

Analytical Technique	Analysis Time	Key Features	Stability Advantages
Supercritical Fluid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (SFC-MS/MS)	3 minutes [84]	Uses supercritical CO2 as primary mobile phase; high diffusivity	Minimal pre-analytical degradation; rapid separation of isomers
Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)	10-30 minutes [79]	High sensitivity and selectivity; versatile	Comprehensive method validation possible
GC-MS/GC-MS/MS	30-60 minutes [50] [86]	Excellent for volatile compounds; requires derivation for many EDCs	Established reference methods; high reproducibility

Supercritical Fluid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (SFC-MS/MS) exemplifies technological innovation addressing stability constraints. This technique utilizes supercritical CO2 as the primary mobile phase, which exhibits high diffusivity and low viscosity, enabling higher flow rates with sub-2μm particles and subsequent reduction in analysis time [84]. The method has been successfully applied to separate and quantify arachidonic acid metabolites within 3 minutes, dramatically limiting analyte degradation during analysis [84].

Mass Spectrometry-Based Detection Methods

Mass spectrometry remains the gold standard for EDC detection due to its superior sensitivity, selectivity, and ability to provide structural information [79]. The predominant MS-based approaches include:

• LC-MS/MS: Particularly effective for thermally labile, non-volatile, or polar EDCs without requiring derivatization. It has become the method of choice for PFAS, phthalates, and bisphenol compounds [50] [79].

• GC-MS/MS: Ideal for volatile and semi-volatile EDCs, including PCBs, PBDEs, and some pesticides. Often requires sample derivatization for less volatile compounds [50] [86].

• ICP-MS: Specialized for metal-based EDCs such as cadmium, lead, and mercury, offering exceptional sensitivity and linear dynamic range [50] [79].

• High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry (HRMS): Provides accurate mass measurements that enable untargeted screening and discovery of unknown EDC metabolites, which is particularly valuable for identifying degradation products [50].

Managing Matrix Effects

Matrix effects—where co-eluting compounds interfere with analyte ionization—represent a significant challenge in EDC analysis and can compromise method accuracy, particularly for unstable compounds [82] [87]. These effects primarily manifest as ion suppression or enhancement in the mass spectrometer source. Effective management strategies include:

• Stable Isotope-Labeled Internal Standards (SIL-IS): Considered the "gold standard" for correcting matrix effects as they closely mimic analyte behavior during extraction and analysis [82] [87].

• Standard Addition Method: Particularly useful for endogenous compounds or when SIL-IS are unavailable or cost-prohibitive [87].

• Enhanced Sample Cleanup: Techniques such as solid-phase extraction (SPE) and liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) can remove interfering matrix components, though they may increase processing time and potentially exacerbate stability issues for short-half-life EDCs [79] [84].

• Chromatographic Optimization: Adjusting separation parameters to shift analyte retention times away from regions of significant ionization suppression [87].

Experimental Protocols for Stability Assessment

Comprehensive Stability Testing Protocol

A systematic approach to stability testing is essential for validating methods for short-half-life EDCs. The following protocol aligns with regulatory guidance and scientific best practices:

1. Sample Collection and Immediate Processing:

• Use pre-chilled collection tubes containing appropriate preservatives or enzyme inhibitors
• For VAMS microsampling, ensure accurate volume collection by completely filling the tip with blood [81]
• Process samples within 30 minutes of collection for unstable EDCs

2. Short-Term Temperature Stability:

• Bench-top stability (4-24 hours at room temperature)
• Refrigerated stability (2-8°C for 24-72 hours)
• Freeze-thaw stability (3 cycles minimum)

3. Long-Term Stability:

• Store at -20°C and -70°C for periods covering anticipated storage times
• For VAMS samples, include room temperature stability testing [81]

4. Post-Preparative Stability:

• Assess stability in autosampler conditions for 24-72 hours

5. Method Implementation:

• Incorporate quality control samples at low, medium, and high concentrations
• Use acceptance criteria of ±15% deviation from nominal concentrations for validation [81]

Case Study: SFC-MS/MS Method for Arachidonic Acid Metabolites

This experimental workflow demonstrates a validated approach for analyzing unstable eicosanoids:

Analytical Workflow for Unstable EDCs

Key Stabilization Elements:

• Addition of butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) and indomethacin during protein precipitation to inhibit oxidative degradation [84]
• Use of tert-butyl methyl ether (MTBE) for efficient lipid extraction
• Ultra-rapid 3-minute chromatographic separation to minimize analytical degradation
• Matrix-matched calibration with deuterated internal standards for each analyte [84]

Performance Metrics:

• Linear range: 0.5-100 ng mL⁻¹ (r² ≥ 0.995)
• Limit of quantification: 0.5 ng mL⁻¹ for most analytes
• Interday and intraday precision: <15%
• Accuracy: 83-109% for most analytes [84]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for EDC Stability Studies

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Examples
Stable Isotope-Labeled Internal Standards (SIL-IS)	Correct for matrix effects and analyte loss; improve quantification accuracy [82] [87]	Deuterated PGD2-d4, PGE2-d4 for eicosanoid analysis [84]
Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT)	Antioxidant preservative; inhibits oxidative degradation [84]	Added to extraction solvents for arachidonic acid metabolites [84]
Volumetric Absorptive Microsampling (VAMS) Devices	Standardized microsampling (10-50 μL); enables room temperature storage [81]	Blood collection for 5-FU, capecitabine, and metabolites [81]
Enzyme Inhibitors (Indomethacin)	Suppress enzymatic activity in biological matrices [84]	Added during plasma/serum processing to stabilize eicosanoids [84]
Specialized SPE Sorbents	Selective extraction and cleanup; remove interfering matrix components [79]	C18, HLB, and mixed-mode sorbents for EDCs in urine and serum [79]
Derivatization Reagents	Enhance volatility and detectability for GC-MS analysis [86]	Silylation agents for phenolic EDCs; acylation for amine-containing compounds

The accurate biomonitoring of short-half-life EDCs requires integrated stabilization strategies spanning collection, processing, analysis, and storage. No single approach universally addresses all stability challenges; rather, researchers must select complementary techniques based on the specific EDCs of interest, available resources, and study objectives. Microsampling technologies like VAMS demonstrate particular promise for stabilizing labile compounds while simplifying sample logistics and storage requirements.

Future advancements will likely focus on field-deployable technologies that minimize pre-analytical delays, potentially incorporating lab-on-a-chip platforms that integrate isothermal amplification methods with CRISPR-Cas sensors for rapid, on-site detection [83]. Additionally, continued development of ultra-rapid chromatographic techniques like SFC-MS/MS will further reduce the analytical window during which degradation can occur. As these technologies mature and standardization improves, the biomonitoring of even the most unstable EDCs will become more reliable, enabling more accurate exposure assessment and strengthening the evidence base for regulatory decision-making.

Validating non-invasive biomonitoring methods for assessing exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) presents unique challenges at the intersection of analytical science, epidemiology, and research ethics. EDCs are exogenous substances that interfere with hormone action and have been linked to increased risks of obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, and infertility [88]. With over 90% of the US population having detectable levels of common EDCs like bisphenol A and phthalates [25], understanding exposure pathways and health impacts requires robust research methodologies that prioritize participant safety and compliance.

The transition from invasive to non-invasive biomonitoring represents a significant advancement in exposure science. Traditional blood-based biomonitoring, while providing valuable exposure data, suffers from ethical and practical constraints, particularly for vulnerable populations [39]. This comparison guide objectively evaluates the performance of non-invasive biomonitoring methods against traditional approaches, examining their ethical implications, methodological validity, and practical implementation within human subjects research frameworks.

Methodological Comparison: Invasive vs. Non-Invasive Biomonitoring

Analytical Performance and Practical Considerations

The selection of appropriate biomonitoring matrices involves careful consideration of analytical performance, practical feasibility, and ethical implications. Non-invasively collected matrices offer distinct advantages for large-scale studies and vulnerable populations while maintaining scientific rigor.

Table 1: Comparison of Biomonitoring Matrices for EDC Exposure Assessment

Matrix	Key Advantages	Limitations	Primary EDCs Measured	Sample Collection Protocol
Blood	In contact with all tissues; equilibrium with organs; well-established protocols [39]	Invasive; ethical constraints with vulnerable populations; requires specialized personnel [63] [39]	Persistent bioaccumulating toxicants (PBTs), lipophilic compounds [39]	Venipuncture by trained phlebotomist; strict temperature control for storage
Urine	Non-invasive; large volumes obtainable; ideal for rapidly metabolized compounds; cost-effective [39]	Variable concentration requires standardization (creatinine/relative density); spot samples may not reflect chronic exposure [39]	Bisphenols, phthalates, parabens, pesticides [25] [39]	Spot collection at home or clinic; mid-stream clean catch; freezing within 4-6 hours
Saliva	Truly non-invasive; correlates with blood for many analytes; suitable for repeated sampling [63]	Low concentrations of some analytes; mechanisms of uptake/clearance not fully understood for all EDCs [63]	Drugs, environmental contaminants with established blood-saliva correlation [63]	Passive drool or assisted collection devices; typically requires fasting prior to collection
Hair	Historical exposure record (approx. 1 cm/month growth); cumulative exposure assessment [39]	Difficult to differentiate internal/external contamination; hair treatments may affect analysis [39]	Metals (Hg, Pb, As), persistent organic pollutants [39]	Cutting close to scalp from posterior vertex; typically 50-100 mg required for analysis

Ethical Dimensions and Participant Compliance

The ethical framework governing human subjects research emphasizes maximizing benefits while minimizing risks and respecting participant autonomy and dignity [89]. Non-invasive methods significantly advance these principles by reducing participation barriers and enabling more inclusive research designs.

Table 2: Ethical and Compliance Considerations in Biomonitoring Research

Consideration	Invasive Methods (Blood)	Non-Invasive Methods (Urine, Saliva)
Risk to Participants	Physical discomfort, bruising, faintness, rare infection risk [39]	Minimal to no physical risk; primarily privacy concerns [39]
Vulnerable Populations	Problematic for children, pregnant women, chronically ill [39]	Broadly applicable across all populations with appropriate consent [39]
Participation Rates	Lower due to invasiveness; potential for selection bias [39]	Higher participation; less selection bias; home collection possible [39]
Repeated Sampling	Limited by participant burden and ethical constraints [39]	Highly feasible; enables longitudinal exposure assessment [39]
Informed Consent Challenges	Requires detailed explanation of medical procedures and risks [90]	Focuses more on data use and privacy protections [89]

Non-invasive methods dramatically improve participation rates, particularly in studies requiring repeated sampling over time. This is crucial for EDC research because chemicals with short biological half-lives (e.g., bisphenols and phthalates with half-lives of 6 hours to 3 days) require longitudinal assessment to capture exposure patterns [25]. The Reducing Exposures to Endocrine Disruptors (REED) study successfully implemented a mail-in urine testing protocol, demonstrating the feasibility of large-scale, non-invasive biomonitoring with high participant retention [25].

Experimental Protocols for Non-Invasive EDC Biomonitoring

Standardized Urine Collection and Analysis Protocol

The REED study provides a validated framework for non-invasive EDC biomonitoring that balances scientific rigor with ethical participant treatment [25]. The methodology includes:

Participant Recruitment and Consent

• Implement tiered informed consent process explaining both testing procedures and data usage
• Provide clear instructions on home collection procedures and storage requirements
• Distribute pre-paid return shipping materials to minimize participant burden
• Offer comprehensive information about the scientific purpose and potential health implications

Sample Collection Protocol

• Provide participants with pre-labeled polypropylene specimen cups
• Instruct participants to collect first-morning void urine samples
• Include specific instructions for avoiding contamination during collection
• Provide temperature-controlled storage materials (cold packs) for sample stability during transport

Laboratory Analysis

• Utilize liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) for precise quantification
• Measure specific gravity or creatinine to standardize for dilution
• Report results in mass/volume units with and without standardization
• Maintain chain of custody documentation for quality assurance

Result Reporting and Intervention

• Provide individualized exposure reports with clear explanations
• Include source identification and personalized reduction recommendations
• Implement follow-up surveys to assess behavior changes and exposure reduction
• Offer access to educational resources about EDC exposure pathways

This protocol successfully demonstrated reduced monobutyl phthalate levels post-intervention and increased participant readiness to adopt exposure-reducing behaviors, particularly among women [25].

Integrated Assessment Framework for EDC Studies

The Systematic Review and Integrated Assessment (SYRINA) framework provides a structured approach for evaluating EDC evidence across multiple streams [91]. This methodology is essential for validating non-invasive biomarkers against health outcomes:

Problem Formulation

• Clearly define the research question and inclusion criteria for studies
• Establish protocol for literature search and study selection
• Identify relevant evidence streams (epidemiology, wildlife, laboratory animal, in vitro, in silico)

Evidence Evaluation

• Apply standardized criteria for evaluating methodological quality of individual studies
• Assess risk of bias across different study designs
• Evaluate evidence of association between exposure and adverse effect
• Evaluate evidence of endocrine disrupting activity
• Establish plausible link between adverse effect and endocrine disruption

Evidence Integration

• Weight evidence from different streams according to quality and relevance
• Assess consistency of effects across different evidence streams
• Evaluate biological plausibility and coherence of evidence
• Characterize uncertainties and evidence gaps

Conclusion and Recommendation

• Transparently document basis for conclusions about EDC identification
• Make recommendations for risk management based on strength of evidence
• Identify research needs to address critical knowledge gaps

This systematic approach is particularly valuable for non-invasive method validation, as it allows researchers to establish concordance between non-invasive measurements and health outcomes observed in traditional toxicological studies [91].

Visualizing Research Workflows and Ethical Frameworks

Non-Invasive Biomonitoring Research Workflow

Ethical Decision Framework for Participant Inclusion

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for Non-Invasive EDC Biomonitoring

Item	Function/Application	Implementation Considerations
LC-MS/MS Systems	Gold-standard quantification of EDCs and metabolites in biological matrices [25]	Requires method validation for each target analyte; high sensitivity needed for low concentrations in saliva/hair
Creatinine Assay Kits	Normalization of urinary biomarker concentrations for dilution variability [39]	Must follow WHO guidelines (30-300 mg/dL acceptable range); considerations for pregnancy/pediatric populations
Standardized Collection Kits	Home-based sample collection for urine, saliva, or hair [25]	Pre-labeled containers; temperature-stabilized shipping materials; clear pictorial instructions
Cellular Transwell Systems	In vitro modeling of salivary gland chemical transport [63]	Rat-derived serous-acinar cells form reliable tight junctions for transport studies
Computational PBPK Models	Predict chemical pharmacokinetics across different life stages [63]	Incorporate age-dependent physiology and disposition mechanisms for target-tissue dosimetry
Stable Isotope-Labeled Internal Standards	Precision and accuracy in mass spectrometry quantification [25]	Isotope dilution methods essential for compensating for matrix effects and recovery variations

Non-invasive biomonitoring methods represent a significant advancement in EDC exposure assessment, offering comparable scientific validity to traditional approaches while superior adherence to ethical principles and participant compliance standards. The methodological frameworks and experimental protocols outlined in this guide provide researchers with evidence-based approaches for implementing these methods in diverse research contexts.

Validation studies demonstrate that non-invasive methods can effectively track intervention outcomes, with research showing significant decreases in monobutyl phthalate levels following personalized exposure reduction recommendations [25]. Furthermore, the ethical advantages of these approaches enable more inclusive research participation, particularly among vulnerable populations who may be most susceptible to EDC health effects.

As the field advances, integration of non-invasive biomonitoring with emerging technologies like multiplex sensor platforms and computational modeling will further enhance our ability to assess complex exposure scenarios while maintaining the highest standards of research ethics and participant protection [63].

Establishing Method Credibility: Validation Parameters and Comparative Matrix Analysis

The validation of analytical methods is the cornerstone of reliable human biomonitoring (HBM), particularly in the assessment of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). As non-invasive matrices like hair, saliva, and sweat gain prominence for quantifying EDC exposure, establishing rigorous validation metrics becomes paramount for generating scientifically sound and reproducible data. Non-invasive biomonitoring addresses critical limitations of traditional methods; for instance, blood sampling is invasive and difficult for vulnerable populations, while spot urine samples suffer from high variability in volume and composition [9] [39]. Furthermore, matrices like hair provide a long-term exposure profile, capturing cumulative EDC intake over weeks or months, which is invaluable for assessing chemicals with short biological half-lives [9] [39].

This guide objectively compares the validation performance of analytical methods across different non-invasive matrices, focusing on the core metrics of linearity, precision, accuracy, and sensitivity. The data and protocols cited herein are framed within the context of EDC exposure assessment, providing researchers with a practical framework for method validation.

Core Validation Metrics and Comparative Performance

The following tables summarize typical validation metrics for EDC analysis in key non-invasive matrices, as reported in the literature. It is important to note that specific performance characteristics can vary significantly depending on the target analyte, the sample preparation technique, and the instrumental platform used.

Table 1: Comparison of Typical Validation Metrics for EDC Analysis in Non-Invasive Matrices

Matrix	Typical EDCs Analyzed	Reported Linear Range	Precision (RSD%)	Accuracy (% Recovery)	LOD/LOQ
Hair	BPA, Phthalates, Parabens, Pesticides [9]	Wide range, compound-dependent [9]	<15% (intra- and inter-day) [9]	85-115% (via spiked recovery experiments) [9]	Low ng/mg to µg/mg range; compound-dependent [9]
Saliva	Pesticides (e.g., 2,4-D), Pharmaceuticals [92]	Compound-dependent	Strong correlation with plasma levels (e.g., r=0.95 for 2,4-D) [92]	Consistent transport from plasma, confirmed in vivo [92]	Requires high sensitivity; LOD must suit occupational exposure levels [92]
Sweat	Metabolites (e.g., Lactate), Heavy Metals [93] [39]	e.g., 0–30 mM for Lactate [93]	Negligible cross-reactivity with interferents [93]	98.45% to 104.28% recovery rates [93]	e.g., LOD of 0.078 mM for Lactate [93]

Table 2: Overview of Non-Invasive Matrices for EDC Biomonitoring

Matrix	Key Advantage	Primary Limitation	Best Suited for
Hair	Long-term exposure assessment (weeks to months) [9]	Difficulty distinguishing internal vs. external contamination [9]	Retrospective analysis of chronic exposure to persistent and semi-persistent EDCs [9]
Saliva	Correlates with unbound, bioavailable fraction in plasma [92]	Low analyte concentration; requires highly sensitive detection methods [92]	Frequent, repeated sampling to monitor recent exposure and pharmacokinetics [92] [39]
Sweat	Completely non-invasive; good for dynamic monitoring [93]	Variable sweat secretion rates; potential for surface contamination [93]	Real-time monitoring of specific metabolites and ionic compounds [93]

Detailed Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Protocol for Hair Analysis of EDCs

The analysis of EDCs in hair is considered the gold standard for non-invasive, retrospective exposure assessment. The following protocol, synthesized from recent reviews, outlines the critical steps [9].

• Sample Collection & Storage: Hair is typically cut close to the scalp from the posterior vertex region, as this area is considered to have the most consistent growth rate. Samples are stored in aluminum foil or a clean paper envelope at room temperature, protected from light [9].
• Decontamination: To address the key limitation of external contamination, hair strands are washed with a series of solvents (e.g., dichloromethane, methanol, and water) in an ultrasonic bath to remove surface-adhered contaminants without leaching those incorporated into the hair shaft.
• Preparation & Extraction: The decontaminated hair is either cut into very fine segments (<1 mm) or pulverized into a powder to increase the surface area. Extraction is most commonly performed using liquid extraction (e.g., with methanol) or solid-liquid extraction, often assisted by techniques like ultrasound or incubation.
• Analysis: The extracts are typically analyzed using liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), which offers the sensitivity and selectivity required for quantifying multiple EDCs at low concentrations [9].
• Validation: The method is validated by assessing:
  • Accuracy: Via spike-and-recovery experiments, where known amounts of analytes are added to "blank" hair samples, with target recovery rates generally between 85-115% [9].
  • Precision: By calculating the relative standard deviation (RSD%) of repeated measurements (intra-day and inter-day), with acceptable values typically under 15% [9].
  • Linearity: By analyzing a series of matrix-matched calibration standards.
  • Sensitivity: By establishing the Limits of Detection (LOD) and Quantification (LOQ), often based on a signal-to-noise ratio of 3:1 and 10:1, respectively.

The workflow for this protocol is summarized in the diagram below.

Protocol for Salivary Transport Assessment

For chemicals to be measurable in saliva, they must be efficiently transported from plasma. The following integrated protocol, based on in vitro and in vivo models for the herbicide 2,4-D, demonstrates how to validate this process [92].

• In Vitro Modeling:

  • Cell Culture: Use a primary salivary gland epithelial cell (SGEC) system cultured on permeable supports to form a confluent, polarized monolayer.
  • Transport Studies: Apply the test chemical (e.g., 2,4-D) to the basolateral (blood) side and measure its appearance in the apical (saliva) compartment over time.
  • Protein Binding Mimicry: Incorporate physiologically relevant concentrations of proteins (e.g., albumin) into the buffers to simulate binding in plasma, which critically affects the free fraction available for transport [92].
  • Mechanistic Studies: Investigate transport mechanisms (e.g., passive diffusion vs. active transport) using inhibitors or competitors like para-aminohippuric acid (PAH), a substrate for organic anion transporters [92].

• In Vivo Correlation:

  • Dosing and Sampling: Administer the chemical (e.g., oral dose of 2,4-D to rats) and collect paired plasma and saliva samples at multiple time points.
  • Analysis: Measure the total and unbound (free) chemical concentrations in plasma and the corresponding concentration in saliva.
  • Data Correlation: Calculate the saliva-to-plasma ratio and evaluate the correlation between salivary levels and the unbound fraction in plasma. A strong correlation (e.g., Pearson coefficient = 0.95) supports the use of saliva as a biomonitoring matrix [92].

The logic of this integrated validation approach is illustrated below.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful implementation of the protocols above requires specific, high-quality reagents and materials. The following table details key solutions used in the featured experiments and the broader field.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Non-Invasive Biomonitoring

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Experimental Context
Primary Salivary Gland Epithelial Cells (SGECs)	In vitro model for studying mechanistic transport of chemicals from blood to saliva [92].	Salivary transport assessment [92].
Lactate-Specific Aptamer	A synthetic biomolecule with high binding affinity and specificity for lactate, used as the recognition element in a biosensor [93].	Sweat lactate biosensor development [93].
Core-Shell Upconversion Nanoparticles (CS-UCNPs)	Fluorescent donor particles that convert near-infrared light to visible light, used in FRET-based sensors to minimize background noise [93].	Optical sensing in complex biological matrices like sweat [93].
Fe3O4-decorated MoS2 Nanosheets	A quenching agent and platform for aptamer immobilization; magnetic properties enable rapid separation of bound complexes [93].	Signal amplification and reduction of non-specific interference in biosensing [93].
LC-MS/MS Systems	The instrumental workhorse for the sensitive, selective, and multi-analyte quantification of EDCs and their metabolites in complex extracts [9].	Hair analysis for EDCs [9].
Para-Aminohippuric Acid (PAH)	A known substrate for organic anion transporters; used in competitive assays to investigate active transport mechanisms [92].	Mechanistic salivary transport studies [92].

Advanced Techniques and Future Directions

The field of non-invasive biomonitoring is rapidly evolving with the integration of advanced technologies. The use of artificial intelligence and machine learning is enhancing the predictive modeling of exposure-related health risks by analyzing complex, high-dimensional datasets from environmental sensors and molecular profiling [17]. Furthermore, epigenetic biomarkers, such as DNA methylation, are emerging as powerful tools for assessing the biological effects of EDC exposure, moving beyond mere exposure quantification towards understanding early biological response [94]. These effect biomarkers can even be measured in non-invasive samples like saliva using novel sequencing technologies like Oxford Nanopore sequencing, which facilitates the design of large-population studies for a next-generation risk assessment of chemicals [94]. The convergence of these advanced technologies with robust validation frameworks promises a more comprehensive understanding of human exposure to EDCs and the associated health risks.

The accurate assessment of human exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is a critical objective in environmental health research. EDCs are a class of man-made substances that can interfere with the normal function of the endocrine system, leading to potential adverse health effects such as cancer, neurodevelopmental disorders, and reproductive issues [50]. As production and consumption of these chemicals increase, validating reliable and non-invasive biomonitoring methods is essential for understanding exposure routes and associated health risks. This guide provides a comparative analysis of three biological matrices—hair, urine, and semen—for EDC exposure assessment, summarizing their respective advantages, limitations, and experimental protocols to inform researcher selection.

Biomonitoring measures the concentration of a chemical or its metabolites (determinants) in biological samples to assess internal exposure. The choice of matrix significantly influences the temporal window of exposure assessment, the types of analytes that can be measured, and the practical logistics of sample collection [95]. The three matrices discussed herein represent different compromises between these factors.

Feature	Hair	Urine	Semen
Basis of Measurement	Accumulation of substances from blood during hair formation and from external environment [96] [97].	Concentration of water-soluble metabolites or parent compounds excreted by kidneys [96] [95].	Presence of compounds in seminal fluid; potential for direct assessment on reproductive tissues.
Temporal Window	Long-term (weeks to months), providing a historical record [96] [98].	Short-term (hours to days), reflecting recent exposure [96].	Information not available in search results.
Sample Collection	Non-invasive; easy storage and transport; stable analytes [96] [97].	Non-invasive; requires consideration of urine dilution (creatinine correction) [95].	Information not available in search results.
Key Advantages	Evaluates chronic exposure; single sample captures averaged exposure; stable for storage/transport [96].	Well-established protocols; large volume of available data; ideal for high-turnover metabolites [95].	Direct relevance for assessing male reproductive toxicity.
Key Limitations	Potential for external contamination; not suitable for volatile compounds; limited data for some EDCs [97].	High variability in analyte concentration; only reflects very recent exposure [96].	Information not available in search results.
Example EDCs Measured	Pesticides (e.g., chlorpyrifos, permethrin), PFAS (e.g., PFOA, PFOS), BPA [96] [97].	Metabolites of pesticides, phthalates, PAHs, heavy metals [50] [95].	Information not available in search results.
Sensitivity	Can detect low-level chronic exposure; linear relationship with exposure intensity demonstrated in animal models [96].	Excellent for detecting recent, high-dose exposure.	Information not available in search results.
Data Gaps/Needs	Standardization of analytical methods; more data on incorporation mechanisms and blood-hair transfer factors [97].	N/A - Mature methodology.	Significant lack of experimental data and standardized methods for EDC biomonitoring.

Detailed Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

Hair Analysis for Pesticides and PFAS

Hair analysis is particularly valuable for assessing cumulative exposure to a range of EDCs, including pesticides and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

• Sample Preparation: Hair is typically cut close to the scalp from the posterior vertex. The sample is then segmented if a temporal exposure profile is desired. A critical pre-analytical step involves pre-washing to remove external contaminants. Protocols often involve sequential washing with water and an organic solvent like acetone, followed by drying [97]. The hair is then pulverized or cut finely to homogenize it.

• Extraction and Clean-up: The homogenized hair is subjected to extraction, often using methanol, to isolate the target analytes. Given hair's complex matrix, a solid-phase extraction (SPE) clean-up step is usually necessary to remove co-extracted proteins, lipids, and pigments that can interfere with analysis. For PFAS, weak anion exchange SPE cartridges are commonly used [97].

• Instrumental Analysis: Analysis is typically performed using chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry.

  • For Pesticides: Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) is often employed for non-polar, volatile pesticides [96].
  • For PFAS: Due to their ionic nature, Ultrahigh-Performance Liquid Chromatography (UHPLC) with a C18 reversed-phase column, coupled to a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer (QqQ) operating in multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode, is the method of choice. This setup provides the sensitivity and selectivity needed to detect low ng/g (ppb) concentrations [97].

• Quality Control: The use of isotope-labelled internal standards for each target analyte is critical for compensating for matrix effects and losses during sample preparation. Procedural blanks and spiked samples should be included in each batch to monitor for background contamination and quantify recovery [97].

Urine Analysis for Metabolites

Urine is the standard matrix for measuring biomarkers of short-term exposure, particularly for compounds that are rapidly metabolized.

• Sample Collection and Handling: Spot urine samples are most common. Because urine output and dilution vary greatly, analyte concentrations are often corrected for creatinine concentration or specific gravity to standardize measurements. The acceptable creatinine range is typically 0.3 g/L to 3.0 g/L [95]. Samples are often frozen until analysis.

• Hydrolysis and Extraction: Many EDCs (e.g., phthalates, phenols) are excreted as glucuronide or sulfate conjugates. An enzymatic hydrolysis step using β-glucuronidase/sulfatase is required to deconjugate these metabolites before analysis. Following hydrolysis, the free analytes are extracted from urine using liquid-liquid extraction or, more commonly, SPE [50].

• Instrumental Analysis: Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is the predominant technique for quantifying EDC metabolites in urine due to its high sensitivity and ability to analyze polar compounds without derivatization. For some volatile organochlorine pesticides, GC-MS may be used [50].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the key steps in processing hair and urine samples for EDC analysis.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Successful biomonitoring relies on a suite of reliable reagents and materials. The table below details essential components for a typical analytical workflow.

Item	Function/Application	Example in EDC Analysis
Isotope-Labelled Internal Standards	Deuterium (^2^H) or Carbon-13 (^13^C) labelled versions of target analytes; added at start of extraction to correct for matrix effects & analyte loss [97].	^13^C~4~-Bisphenol A; ^13~C~2~-PFOA for PFAS analysis [97].
Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE) Cartridges	Purify sample extracts by retaining interfering matrix components and/or the target analytes on a sorbent phase [97].	Weak anion exchange (WAX) cartridges for PFAS; C18 cartridges for pesticides/metabolites [97].
Chromatography Columns	Separate complex mixture of analytes from each other and matrix before detection [97].	UHPLC C18 reversed-phase column (1.7 µm particles) for PFAS [97].
Mass Spectrometry Reference Materials	Calibrate mass spectrometer and confirm analyte identity based on specific mass fragmentation [50].	Certified reference standards for parent EDCs and their metabolites (e.g., from NIST).
Enzymes for Deconjugation	Hydrolyze phase-II metabolites in urine to free the parent biomarker for analysis [50].	β-Glucuronidase/Sulfatase enzyme from Helix pomatia for hydrolyzing glucuronide conjugates.

The choice between hair, urine, and semen for EDC biomonitoring is dictated by the specific research question. Urine remains the gold standard for assessing recent, acute exposure to rapidly metabolized compounds, supported by extensive literature and standardized protocols. Hair offers a superior matrix for evaluating chronic, cumulative exposure, overcoming the high variability associated with spot urine samples [96]. Its stability and ease of storage make it highly suitable for large-scale epidemiological studies. A significant finding from a controlled rat model demonstrated a strong linear relationship between pesticide exposure intensity and concentration in hair, and for many chemicals, hair analysis was superior to plasma and urine in correctly identifying exposure groups [96]. Critical gaps remain, particularly for semen, where a severe lack of experimental data limits its current application in EDC exposure assessment.

Future work should focus on harmonizing analytical protocols for hair analysis, particularly for emerging EDCs like PFAS [97]. Furthermore, dedicated research is needed to establish standardized methods for semen biomonitoring and to elucidate the mechanisms of EDC incorporation into this matrix, which is directly relevant for understanding male reproductive toxicity. The validation of these non-invasive methods will be paramount for advancing our understanding of the long-term health impacts of EDC exposure.

In the evolving field of exposure science, non-invasive biomonitoring has emerged as a critical approach for assessing human exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and other environmental contaminants. Establishing robust correlations between internal biomarker levels, external exposure sources, and data from health questionnaires is fundamental to validating these methods for both research and clinical applications. This guide compares key methodological approaches by examining their performance in quantifying these complex relationships, providing researchers with a framework for selecting appropriate protocols for EDC exposure assessment.

Comparative Analysis of Key Methodological Approaches

The table below summarizes three distinct methodological approaches for correlating biomarker data with external exposures, highlighting their core applications, data outputs, and key performance aspects.

Table 1: Comparison of Methodological Approaches for Exposure-Biomarker Correlation

Methodology	Core Application	Typical Biomarkers Measured	Questionnaire Integration	Key Performance Data
Environmental Sampling & Biomonitoring [99]	Correlating atmospheric pollutant levels with internal dose in populations near point sources.	Urinary metabolites: trans,trans-muconic acid (T,T-MA), S-phenylmercapturic acid (S-PMA), 1,2-dihydroxybenzene (1,2-DB), S-benylmercapturic acid (S-BMA) [99].	Supplementary lifestyle and residential history questionnaires [99].	Spatial trends showed higher urinary T,T-MA levels (127 ± 285 μg g⁻¹ crt) in residents closer to emission source [99].
Toxicogenomics & Machine Learning [100]	Identifying novel protein biomarkers and predicting phenotypic genotoxicity/carcinogenicity from toxicogenomic data.	Protein biomarkers indicative of DNA damage repair pathways (e.g., RAD54, CYP1A1) [100].	Not a primary focus; relies on curated chemical exposure data.	Achieved high prediction accuracy for carcinogenicity (AUC: 0.91) and Ames test genotoxicity (AUC: 0.87) using SVM models [100].
Validated Health Behavior Surveys [35]	Assessing and quantifying behaviors that influence exposure to EDCs via major routes (food, respiration, skin).	Not directly measured; survey serves as a proxy for exposure risk.	Self-reported 19-item survey on reproductive health behaviors for reducing EDC exposure [35].	Demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha: 0.80) and content validity (CVI > .80) for exposure risk assessment [35].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Environmental BTEX Sampling and Urinary Biomarker Analysis

This protocol, used to study populations near a coking factory, provides a classic model for linking a specific external exposure to an internal biomarker dose [99].

• Atmospheric BTEX Sampling: Ambient air samples are collected in evacuated stainless steel canisters (e.g., 3.2 L Silonite Canisters). Sampling should be conducted at multiple sites, including potential point sources and background locations, with samples collected at different times to account for temporal variation [99].
• Instrumental Analysis of BTEX: Air samples are analyzed using a preconcentrator-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) system. A defined volume of sample and internal standard gas (e.g., 1,4-difluorobenzene) is concentrated using a preconcentrator (e.g., Model 7100) and subsequently injected into the GC-MS for separation and quantification [99].
• Urine Sample Collection and Biomarker Analysis: First-morning urine voids are collected from study participants. Samples are then extracted using a solid-phase extraction (SPE) system (e.g., C18 SPE cartridges). Analysis of urinary biomarkers (T,T-MA, S-PMA, etc.) is performed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) systems (e.g., Agilent 6460 LC-MS). Creatinine levels are measured to correct for urine dilution [99].
• Questionnaire Administration: A structured questionnaire is administered to participants to gather data on potential confounders and lifestyle factors, including individual characteristics, job information, smoking status, and dietary habits [99].
• Data Correlation and Risk Assessment: Statistical analyses are conducted to correlate spatial trends in atmospheric BTEX concentrations with urinary biomarker levels. Health risks, such as lifetime cancer risk (LCR), are calculated based on the measured or modeled exposure data [99].

Protocol 2: Machine Learning-Based Biomarker Identification from Toxicogenomics

This protocol uses a high-throughput toxicogenomics assay to identify biomarker ensembles that predict regulatory relevant endpoints like genotoxicity [100].

• Toxicogenomic Assay: A panel of bioreporter strains (e.g., GFP-tagged yeast strains covering 38 protein biomarkers across seven DNA damage repair pathways) is exposed to a range of concentrations of test chemicals. Protein expression changes are monitored over time to generate temporal response data [100].
• Feature Selection - Maximum Relevance and Minimum Redundancy (MRMR): The MRMR algorithm is applied to the toxicogenomic data to identify the most relevant protein biomarkers for predicting a specific endpoint (e.g., carcinogenicity). This method selects features that have the highest relevance to the target outcome while minimizing redundancy among the features themselves [100].
• Classification Modeling - Support Vector Machine (SVM): The top-ranked biomarkers identified by MRMR are used to train a classification model. The SVM algorithm is particularly suited for this task, as it effectively handles data where the number of features exceeds the number of samples and helps limit model overfitting [100].
• Model Validation: The performance of the predictive model is rigorously evaluated using metrics such as the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), classification accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. The identity and number of top-ranked biomarkers are analyzed for their contribution to model performance [100].

Visualizing the Toxicogenomic Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the integrated machine learning pipeline for biomarker identification from toxicogenomic data.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful execution of the protocols described above relies on a suite of specialized reagents and tools. The following table details essential items for setting up these experiments.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Exposure and Biomarker Studies

Item	Specific Example / Type	Primary Function in Research
Air Sampling Canister [99]	Stainless Steel, 3.2 L Silonite Canisters	Collecting and storing whole-air samples for volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis without contamination or loss.
Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) Cartridges [99]	C18 SPE Cartridge (500 mg, 6 mL)	Purifying and concentrating analytes (e.g., urinary biomarkers) from complex biological matrices prior to LC-MS analysis.
LC-MS/MS System [99]	Agilent 6460 LC-MS Triple Quadrupole	Quantifying specific biomarker metabolites (e.g., T,T-MA, S-PMA) with high sensitivity and specificity in urine/serum.
GC-MS System [99]	Preconcentrator-GC-MSD/FID (e.g., Agilent 7890A/5975C)	Separating, identifying, and quantifying volatile organic compounds (e.g., BTEX) in environmental air samples.
Reporter Strain Panel [100]	GFP-tagged Yeast Strains (e.g., covering 38 DNA repair proteins)	Mechanistic, high-throughput screening of chemical-induced stress responses and biomarker identification.
Validated Survey Instrument [35]	19-item Reproductive Health Behavior Survey	Systematically quantifying subject behaviors related to EDC exposure via diet, respiration, and dermal contact.

The validation of non-invasive biomonitoring methods for EDC exposure assessment hinges on robust strategies for correlating internal biomarker levels with external exposures and modifiable behaviors. The compared methodologies each offer distinct strengths: environmental sampling with biomonitoring provides a direct, quantitative link to point-source exposures; toxicogenomics with machine learning unlocks powerful predictive models and novel biomarker discovery; and validated health questionnaires offer a scalable and cost-effective proxy for assessing exposure risk from diverse sources. The choice of method depends heavily on the research question, scale, and resources. An integrated approach, combining elements from multiple protocols, often provides the most comprehensive strategy for advancing exposure science and protecting public health.

The accurate assessment of human exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is a critical challenge in modern environmental health research. EDCs comprise a chemically diverse group of substances that can interfere with hormone action, and growing evidence links them to elevated risks of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and reproductive impairments [88]. To reveal the connection between EDC exposure and human health outcomes, researchers require highly sensitive and reliable methods to detect these compounds at trace concentrations in complex biological and environmental matrices [101]. For decades, Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE) has served as the established workhorse for sample preparation, enabling the isolation, cleaning, and pre-concentration of analytes from liquid samples. SPE is an exhaustive technique where the entire sample is passed through a sorbent-packed cartridge, and analytes of interest are subsequently eluted with a suitable solvent [102].

However, the field is witnessing a significant shift toward micro-extraction techniques, which are based on a non-exhaustive equilibrium principle where only a small fraction of the analyte is extracted from the sample [103]. Among these, Solid-Phase Microextraction (SPME) has gained prominence as a solvent-free or solvent-minimized approach that utilizes a coated fiber to extract analytes directly from a sample or its headspace [101]. This guide provides an objective, data-driven comparison of these competing methodologies, specifically framed within the context of validating non-invasive biomonitoring methods for EDC exposure assessment.

Methodological Principles and Workflows

The core distinction between these techniques lies in their fundamental extraction philosophy—exhaustive versus non-exhaustive—which dictates their respective workflows, hardware, and operational parameters.

Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE): The Established Workhorse

SPE is a multi-step, flow-through equilibrium process designed to quantitatively transfer analytes from a liquid sample onto a solid sorbent [104]. A typical SPE procedure involves the following stages, often automated using vacuum manifolds or robotic systems [104]:

• Sorbent Conditioning: The cartridge (commonly a 500 mg sorbent in a 3-6 mL syringe barrel) is prepared with an organic solvent (e.g., methanol) followed by an aqueous solution to create an ideal environment for analyte retention.
• Sample Loading: The liquid sample is passed through the conditioned sorbent bed. Analytes with a higher affinity for the sorbent than the sample matrix are retained.
• Washing: Interfering matrix components are removed by applying a weak solvent that does not elute the target analytes.
• Elution: Purified analytes are recovered using a small volume of a strong solvent, yielding a concentrated sample ready for analysis [102].

The configuration of SPE has evolved from classic cartridges to include 96-well plates for high-throughput applications and disks that offer a larger cross-sectional area, enabling faster flow rates and the processing of substantial sample volumes (up to 1 L) [104]. The choice of sorbent is critical and depends on the analyte's properties; common phases include reversed-phase (e.g., C18), ion-exchange, and mixed-mode materials [104].

Solid-Phase Microextraction (SPME): The Solvent-Minimized Alternative

SPME, introduced in the early 1990s, simplifies the sample preparation process by integrating sampling, extraction, and concentration into a single step [103]. Its workflow is notably more straightforward:

• Exposure: A fused-silica fiber coated with a thin layer of extracting phase (e.g., polydimethylsiloxane, polyacrylate) is exposed to the sample (via direct immersion or headspace) for a predetermined time.
• Equilibrium: Analytes partition from the sample matrix into the coating until an equilibrium is reached. The amount of analyte extracted at equilibrium depends on its distribution constant and is independent of the sample volume, which is a key difference from SPE.
• Desorption: The fiber is retracted and transferred to an analytical instrument, where thermal desorption (for GC) or solvent desorption (for HPLC) releases the analytes for analysis [103].

A significant advancement in SPME is the development of in-tube SPME (IT-SPME), which is amenable to automation and online coupling with liquid chromatography systems [104]. Furthermore, the range of coating materials has expanded beyond commercial offerings to include advanced sorbents like carbon nanotubes, nanocomposites, and aerogels, which improve extraction efficiency, stability, and selectivity for specific EDCs [103] [101].

The following workflow diagrams illustrate the key procedural steps for each method.

Comparative Performance Data for EDC Analysis

Direct comparative studies and data from validation experiments provide the most objective basis for evaluating these techniques. The following tables summarize key performance metrics from the literature, focusing on parameters critical for sensitive EDC biomonitoring.

Table 1: Direct Method Comparison for Multi-Residue Analysis A study evaluating the GC-MS/MS determination of 57 multiclass priority organic contaminants (including PAHs and pesticides) in wastewater provides a head-to-head comparison [105].

Performance Parameter	Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE)	Headspace SPME (HS-SPME)	Liquid-Liquid Extraction (LLE)
Analyte Coverage	Recovered all target compounds	14 compounds not properly recovered; worse overall performance	Recovered all target compounds
Recovery Rates	70-120% for most compounds at 15 & 150 ng/L	Not satisfactory for multi-residue analysis	70-120% for most compounds at 15 & 150 ng/L
Key Advantage	High analyte coverage and good recovery	Solvent-free, simple workflow	Established, reliable protocol
Key Disadvantage	Uses organic solvents	Poor performance for non-volatile/ semi-volatile compounds	Large solvent volumes, time-consuming

Table 2: Analytical Performance in Biological Matrices Performance data for extracting a cyanide metabolite (ATCA) from biological samples using GC-MS demonstrates the capabilities of micro-extraction variants versus SPE [106].

Performance Parameter	Magnetic CNT d-µSPE	Conventional SPE
Limit of Detection (LOD) in Bovine Blood	10 ng/mL	1 ng/mL
Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) in Bovine Blood	60 ng/mL	25 ng/mL
Recovery Efficiency	High for polar/ionic metabolites	High
Solvent Consumption	Significantly reduced	Higher
Automation Potential	High (dispersive mode)	High (cartridge/96-well plate)

Beyond these direct comparisons, SPME demonstrates distinct advantages for on-site and in vivo sampling, which are paramount for non-invasive biomonitoring. Its compact nature allows for direct sampling of environmental water or air, preserving the original analyte profile and avoiding the errors associated with sample transport [101]. Crucially, SPME devices can be adapted for in vivo sampling in plants, animals, and even humans, enabling the direct measurement of freely dissolved EDC concentrations in tissues or biofluids without subjecting the organism to significant harm, thus providing more toxicologically relevant data [101].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Selecting the appropriate sorbents and configurations is fundamental to developing a robust analytical method. The following table details key solutions used in SPE and SPME for EDC research.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for EDC Extraction

Item Name	Function & Application in EDC Analysis
SPE C18 Cartridges	Reversed-phase sorbent for extracting non-polar to moderately polar EDCs (e.g., PBDEs, PCBs) from water, urine, or serum [104] [102].
Oasis HLB Sorbent	Hydrophilic-lipophilic balanced polymer sorbent for retaining a broad spectrum of EDCs, including acidic, basic, and neutral compounds across a wide pH range [102].
Molecularly Imprinted Polymer (MIP) Sorbents	Synthetic sorbents with tailor-made recognition sites for specific EDCs (e.g., BPA, specific pesticides), offering high selectivity and clean-up from complex matrices [104].
Polyacrylate SPME Fiber	A polar fiber coating suitable for extracting semi-volatile EDCs like phenols, pesticides, and PAHs from environmental and biological samples [105].
PDMS/CAR/DVB SPME Fiber	A tri-phase coating (Polydimethylsiloxane/Carboxen/Divinylbenzene) ideal for headspace extraction of volatile EDCs (e.g., solvents, halocarbons) and some semi-volatiles [105].
Carbon Nanotube (CNT) Sorbents	Advanced sorbents with high surface area used in dispersive µSPE or as SPME coatings; enhance extraction efficiency and stability for various EDCs [103] [106].

The benchmarking data presented in this guide demonstrates that the choice between Solid-Phase Extraction and Solid-Phase Microextraction is not a matter of declaring one universally superior, but rather of selecting the right tool for the specific research question within EDC exposure assessment.

• SPE remains a powerful, exhaustive technique ideal for applications requiring high analyte coverage, quantitative recovery, and the processing of large sample volumes, particularly in a regulated, high-throughput laboratory setting. Its primary drawbacks are its dependence on organic solvents and its lesser suitability for on-site or in vivo applications.
• SPME and related micro-extraction techniques offer a green, flexible alternative that excels in scenarios demanding solvent reduction, on-site field sampling, and in vivo biomonitoring. Their non-exhaustive nature can provide more toxicologically relevant data but may require careful calibration and can have limitations in analyte coverage for some complex multi-residue methods.

Future directions in this field are being shaped by several key trends. The automation and miniaturization of all sample preparation techniques are advancing to increase throughput, reproducibility, and ease of use [107]. There is also a strong research focus on the development of novel sorbents, such as ionic liquids, metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), and other nanomaterials, to improve the selectivity, sensitivity, and capacity of both SPE and SPME [103] [101]. Finally, the ability to conduct in vivo SPME presents a transformative opportunity for exposure science, allowing for direct, non-lethal measurement of EDCs in living organisms, which aligns perfectly with the overarching thesis of validating non-invasive biomonitoring methods for a more accurate assessment of exposure and health risk [101].

Inter-Laboratory Validation and the Role of Certified Reference Materials

The assessment of human exposure to Endocrine-Drupting Chemicals (EDCs) has increasingly turned to non-invasive biomonitoring using matrices such as hair, nails, and saliva. The reliability of data generated from these complex matrices is paramount. This guide examines the critical importance of inter-laboratory validation studies and the foundational role of Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) in ensuring the accuracy, comparability, and regulatory acceptance of analytical results in this advancing field.

Human biomonitoring (HBM) is defined as the direct measurement of people's exposure to environmental contaminants by measuring substances or their metabolites in blood, urine, or other specimens [108]. In the context of EDCs—xenobiotics that interfere with the natural hormones of the body [86]—biomonitoring provides a crucial measure of the internal body burden, integrating exposure from all routes including ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact [9] [108].

For non-invasive matrices like hair, saliva, and nails, method validation is particularly critical. These matrices offer advantages such as ease of collection, better participant compliance, and the ability to reflect chronic or past exposure [9] [85]. However, they also present complex analytical challenges due to lower analyte concentrations and complex matrix effects. Method validation is the process of proving that an analytical method is suitable for its intended purpose, establishing the performance characteristics and limitations of a method, and identifying the influences which may change these characteristics [109]. In many sectors, the requirement for methods that have been "fully validated" is prescribed by legislation, and "full" validation typically entails a formal inter-laboratory study [109].

The Imperative for Inter-Laboratory Validation

Definition and Objectives

Inter-laboratory validation, often called a collaborative trial, is a structured process where multiple independent laboratories analyze homogeneous samples using a standardized protocol. The primary objective is to demonstrate the ruggedness of a method—its insensitivity to minor changes in laboratory conditions and operators—and to establish its universally applicable performance characteristics [109].

Establishing Method Performance Characteristics

A successfully validated method provides consensus values for key performance parameters that a single laboratory cannot definitively establish on its own. The table below summarizes the core characteristics evaluated during validation and their significance for non-invasive EDC biomonitoring.

Table 1: Key Performance Characteristics Established Through Inter-Laboratory Validation

Performance Characteristic	Definition	Significance for Non-Invasive EDC Biomonitoring
Applicability/Selectivity	The ability of a method to distinguish the analyte from other components in the matrix [109].	Ensures measurements of specific EDCs (e.g., BPA, parabens) in hair or saliva are not biased by co-existing compounds [9].
Trueness	The closeness of agreement between the average value obtained from a large series of test results and an accepted reference value [109].	Assesses systematic error (bias), critical for accurately determining low concentrations of EDCs in complex matrices like nails.
Precision	The closeness of agreement between independent test results obtained under stipulated conditions [109].	Quantifies random error; often expressed as repeatability (within-lab) and reproducibility (between-lab), which is a key outcome of inter-laboratory study.
Recovery	The proportion of the amount of analyte, present in or added to the analytical portion of the test material, which is extracted and presented for measurement [109].	Vital for validating sample preparation (e.g., extraction, digestion) for EDCs in hair, where recovery can be variable [9].
Limit of Detection (LOD) & Quantification (LOQ)	The lowest concentration of an analyte that can be detected/quantified with stated certainty [109].	Determines the method's sensitivity for detecting trace-level EDCs in small samples of saliva or tears [9] [110].
Measurement Uncertainty	A parameter associated with the result of a measurement that characterizes the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand [109].	Provides a quantitative indicator of result reliability, essential for health risk assessment based on EDC exposure levels.

The Validation Workflow

The process of organizing and executing an inter-laboratory validation study is methodical and requires careful planning to yield statistically sound results. The following diagram visualizes the key stages of this workflow.

Diagram 1: Inter-Laboratory Validation Workflow. The process begins with a robust single-laboratory method [109], leading to a collaboratively studied, standard method.

Certified Reference Materials: The Metrological Anchor

Definition and Hierarchy

Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) are reference materials (RMs), accompanied by documentation issued by an authoritative body, providing one or more specified property values with associated uncertainties and traceabilities, using valid procedures [111]. They are the highest standard in the metrology hierarchy for chemical analysis.

Table 2: Hierarchy and Characteristics of Reference Materials

Material Category	Key Features	Typical Use Case
Primary Reference Material	A pure substance reference material established using a primary reference procedure [111].	Benzoic acid or methyl paraben; forms the metrological foundation for value assignment [111].
Certified Reference Material (CRM)	Comes with a certificate providing certified values, uncertainty, and traceability. Production must meet ISO 17034 [112] [111].	Calibration, method validation, and assigning values to in-house quality control materials.
Reference Material (RM)	Sufficiently homogeneous and stable, fit for its intended use, but may not have certified values [112] [111].	General quality control, preliminary method development.
Analytical Standard/Reagent Grade	May come with an analysis certificate, but not certified for use as a reference material [112].	Routine preparation of calibration standards where maximum metrological rigor is not required.

The Critical Role of CRMs in Validation and Quality Assurance

CRMs are indispensable tools throughout the analytical lifecycle, from method development to routine monitoring.

• Method Validation: CRMs are used to establish the trueness and recovery of an analytical method. By analyzing a CRM with a known concentration of an EDC (e.g., BPA in hair), a laboratory can quantify method bias [109].
• Calibration: CRMs serve as the highest level of calibration standards, ensuring that the instrument's response is accurately converted into a quantitative result, traceable to SI units [112] [111].
• Quality Control: Including CRMs or secondary RMs in every analytical batch allows for ongoing verification of method performance and detection of analytical drift over time [112].
• Proficiency Testing: In inter-laboratory comparisons, the use of common CRMs allows organizers to assess the accuracy and consistency of results across all participating laboratories [86].

The relationship between CRMs and key validation parameters like trueness and uncertainty is fundamental, as illustrated below.

Diagram 2: The Role of CRMs in Defining Trueness and Uncertainty. A CRM provides an anchor point of truth against which laboratory bias is measured, and the uncertainty of the certified value contributes to the overall measurement uncertainty budget.

Practical Application: Validating a Method for EDCs in Hair

Experimental Protocol for Multi-Lab Validation

The following protocol is synthesized from recommendations in the literature for validating the analysis of EDCs like phthalates, parabens, and BPA in human hair [9] [109].

• Pre-Validation (Lead Laboratory):

  • Method Finalization: Develop a detailed, standardized operating procedure (SOP) covering sample collection (e.g., posterior vertex region), preparation (cutting vs. powdering), extraction (e.g., methanol incubation), clean-up (e.g., SPE), and instrumental analysis (typically LC-MS/MS or GC-MS/MS) [9].
  • Homogeneity & Stability Testing: Prepare a large batch of homogeneous hair samples, spiked with a range of target EDCs at relevant concentrations. Test for homogeneity and short-term stability to ensure sample integrity during the study [109].

• Collaborative Trial Execution:

  • Laboratory Selection: Recruit 8-12 proficient laboratories, a number consistent with international protocols like the International Harmonised Protocol [109].
  • Sample Distribution: Distribute blind duplicates of the test samples at different concentration levels, along with a CRM (if available) or a characterized RM, the SOP, and reporting forms.
  • Data Analysis: Collect results and perform statistical outlier tests (e.g., Cochran's and Grubbs' tests). Calculate the grand mean, repeatability standard deviation (sr), and reproducibility standard deviation (sR) for each analyte [109].

Example Dataset: Hypothetical Inter-Laboratory Results

The table below presents hypothetical data from a collaborative study for the determination of Benzophenone-3 (BP-3), an EDC from sunscreens, in human hair.

Table 3: Hypothetical Inter-Laboratory Validation Data for BP-3 in Hair (ng/g)

Sample	Grand Mean	Repeatability Standard Deviation (s_r)	Repeatability Relative Standard Deviation (RSD_r %)	Reproducibility Standard Deviation (s_R)	Reproducibility Relative Standard Deviation (RSD_R %)	Number of Labs (after outlier removal)
A (Low)	45.2	3.1	6.9%	6.8	15.0%	10
B (Medium)	215.5	12.9	6.0%	25.1	11.6%	10
C (High)	850.0	42.5	5.0%	93.5	11.0%	9

This data demonstrates that while within-lab precision (RSDr) is excellent (<7%), the between-lab reproducibility (RSDR) is the larger source of variability, highlighting the value of the inter-laboratory study. These RSD_R values (~11-15%) are typical for complex analyses in biological matrices and define the expected uncertainty when the method is transferred to a new laboratory.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful validation and routine application of non-invasive biomonitoring methods rely on a suite of high-quality materials and reagents.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Non-Invasive EDC Biomonitoring

Item Category	Specific Examples	Function and Importance
Certified Reference Materials (CRMs)	CRM for BPA in hair, CRM for phthalate metabolites in urine, pure substance CRMs (e.g., methylparaben) [112] [111].	Anchor the measurement scale, establish metrological traceability, and validate method trueness. The cornerstone of reliable data.
Analytical Standards	Native analyte standards for EDCs (BPA, parabens, PBDEs), isotopically labeled internal standards (e.g., 13C-BPA) [112] [86].	Used for daily calibration and quantification. Labeled internal standards correct for matrix effects and losses during sample preparation.
Sample Preparation Materials	Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE) cartridges (C18, HLB), solvents (HPLC-grade methanol, acetone), derivatization reagents [9] [86].	Isolate, clean up, and concentrate target analytes from complex matrices like hair and nails, reducing interferences and improving sensitivity.
Quality Control Materials	In-house prepared quality control pools (e.g., characterized leftover hair samples), commercial control materials [109].	Monitor the stability and precision of the analytical method over time in every batch of samples analyzed.

The shift towards non-invasive biomonitoring for assessing exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals represents a significant advancement in environmental health research. However, the scientific and regulatory impact of data generated from matrices like hair and saliva hinges entirely on their analytical reliability. Inter-laboratory validation is the proven process that transforms a promising single-laboratory method into a robust, standardized tool fit for purpose. This process, in turn, is fundamentally dependent on the use of Certified Reference Materials to provide the non-negotiable anchor of accuracy and traceability. Investing in these rigorous quality assurance practices is not merely a technical exercise; it is a prerequisite for producing credible data that can inform public health policy, validate regulatory decisions, and advance our understanding of the human exposome.

Conclusion

The validation of robust, non-invasive biomonitoring methods is paramount for accurately characterizing the internal EDC exposome and its link to adverse health outcomes. This review synthesizes evidence that hair, semen, and optimized urine analyses provide complementary windows of exposure, with hair offering long-term retrospective data and semen providing direct insight into reproductive organ burden. The advancement of efficient, multi-analyte methods like QuEChERS and SALLE, coupled with LC-MS/MS, has significantly improved our analytical capacity. Future directions must focus on standardizing protocols across matrices, expanding biomonitoring to include emerging EDCs, and integrating these tools into large-scale epidemiological studies and clinical trials. Ultimately, these validated non-invasive methods are foundational for developing targeted public health interventions and informing regulatory policies aimed at reducing EDC exposure.

References

• 1. Bisphenol A and Phthalates: How Environmental Chemicals Are Reshaping Toxicology - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6260148/]
• 2. Thematic Review of Endocrine Disruptors and Their Role in Shaping... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11764154/]
• 3. Within- and between-person variability of urinary phthalate metabolites and bisphenol analogues over seven days: Considerations of biomonitoring study design - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935122002122]
• 4. Review of non - invasive biomarkers as a tool for exposure ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39607011/]
• 5. Development and validation of a versatile non - invasive urinary... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38518717/]
• 6. Bisphenol A and its analogues: from their occurrence in foodstuffs marketed in Europe to improved monitoring strategies—a review of published literature from 2018 to 2023 - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11272703/]
• 7. marlod: an R package to model environmental exposure and biomonitoring data with repeated measurements and values below the limit of detection - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39875597/]
• 8. Frontiers | Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals and Reproductive Health in... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2021.706532/full]
• 9. Analytical methods and biomonitoring results in hair for the assessment of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals: A literature review - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653524004168]
• 10. Application of nail analysis in human biomonitoring of toxic pollutants ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39900128/]
• 11. (PDF) Hair as a noninvasive of human exposure to the... biomarker [https://www.academia.edu/78037273/Hair_as_a_noninvasive_biomarker_of_human_exposure_to_the_endocrine_disruptors_polybrominated_diphenyl_ethers_a_meta_analysis]
• 12. Comparing Drug Testing Methods: Blood, Nail, and Hair | AttoLife [https://www.attolife.co.uk/blog/2024/6/comparing-drug-testing-methods-blood-nail-and-hair/]
• 13. First study of heavy metals analysis in hair and oxidative status of... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40591122/]
• 14. Exposome-wide association study of semen quality: systematic... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6400484/]
• 15. Biomarker Discovery and Validation: Statistical Considerations - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8012218/]
• 16. Validation of Analytical Methods for Biomarkers Employed in Drug Development - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2744124/]
• 17. Top Research Highlights from 2025 Exposure Science Meeting [https://bioengineer.org/top-research-highlights-from-2025-exposure-science-meeting/]
• 18. Human hair as a diagnostic tool in medicine - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12272604/]
• 19. used as evidence of Hair to certain chemicals exposure [https://www.anses.fr/en/content/hair-used-evidence-exposure-certain-chemicals]
• 20. The multifaceted role of hair as a biospecimen: recent advances in precision medicine and forensic science | Experimental & Molecular Medicine [https://www.nature.com/articles/s12276-025-01548-4]
• 21. _ Hair analysis [https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Hair_analysis.html]
• 22. The potential use of diisononyl phthalate metabolites hair as... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25278043/]
• 23. its benefits when you need it and what it reveals Hair analysis [https://www.dalilimedical.com/en/article-4190/Hair-analysis-its-benefits-when-you-need-it-and-what-it-reveals]
• 24. Seminal biomarkers for the evaluation of male infertility - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4854096/]
• 25. Reducing Exposures to Endocrine Disruptors (REED) study... [https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-024-08627-3]
• 26. Endocrine disrupting chemicals and impact on male ... reproductive [https://tau.amegroups.org/article/view/19857/html]
• 27. Exposome-wide association study of semen quality: Systematic discovery of endocrine disrupting chemical biomarkers in fertility require large sample sizes - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30583854/]
• 28. Frontiers | Sensor technologies for the detection and monitoring of endocrine-disrupting chemicals [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1141523/full]
• 29. The semen microbiome and its impact on sperm function and male ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32794312/]
• 30. Disruptor Endocrine and Children’s Health - PMC Chemicals [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9916521/]
• 31. Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals | Endocrine Society [https://www.endocrine.org/advocacy/position-statements/endocrine-disrupting-chemicals]
• 32. : Endocrine , effects on human health... disrupting chemicals exposure [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31792807/]
• 33. Frontiers | Environmental Endocrine-Disrupting Chemical Exposure: Role in Non-Communicable Diseases [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.553850/full]
• 34. Frontiers | The impact, mechanisms and prevention strategies of... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2025.1573526/full]
• 35. Frontiers | Development and validation of a survey on reproductive... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/reproductive-health/articles/10.3389/frph.2025.1519896/full]
• 36. Exposure Assessment Tools by Approaches - Exposure Reconstruction (Biomonitoring and Reverse Dosimetry) | US EPA [https://www.epa.gov/expobox/exposure-assessment-tools-approaches-exposure-reconstruction-biomonitoring-and-reverse]
• 37. Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2726844/]
• 38. Disruptors: Endocrine of Action and Implications for... Mechanism [https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/43057/endocrine-disruptors-mechanism-of-action-and-implications-for-human-health/magazine]
• 39. Applicability of non -invasively collected matrices for human... [https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-8-8]
• 40. analytical approach for monitoring endocrine-disrupting... QuEChERS [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00216-025-06099-1]
• 41. High-Throughput Determination of Major Mycotoxins with Human... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8780005/]
• 42. Clinical Research Applications | Thermo Fisher Scientific - US [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/industrial/mass-spectrometry/liquid-chromatography-mass-spectrometry-lc-ms/lc-ms-systems/triple-quadrupole-lc-ms/clinical-research-applications.html]
• 43. Development and validation of high - resolution ... mass [https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8630121]
• 44. Development and validation of a versatile non - invasive urinary... [https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/publications/development-and-validation-of-a-versatile-non-invasive-urinary-st]
• 45. Choice of LC - MS Methods for the Absolute Quantification of... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4365102/]
• 46. Co-exposure and health risks of parabens, bisphenols, triclosan, phthalate metabolites and hydroxyl polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons based on simultaneous detection in urine samples from guangzhou, south China - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33199068/]
• 47. Assessment of Exposure to Di-(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate (DEHP) Metabolites and Bisphenol A (BPA) and Its Importance for the Prevention of Cardiometabolic Diseases [https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1989/12/2/167]
• 48. Determination and separation of bisphenol A, phthalate metabolites... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00216-015-8497-5]
• 49. determination of Simultaneous and phthalates from... bisphenols [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36069035/]
• 50. Sensor technologies for the detection and monitoring of endocrine-disrupting chemicals - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10083357/]
• 51. A review of biosensor for environmental monitoring: principle, application, and corresponding achievement of sustainable development goals - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10308875/]
• 52. Co-exposure of phthalates , bisphenols , parabens , and polycyclic... [https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/jeea.2025.07]
• 53. of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in Exclusively... Biomonitoring [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12403-025-00735-y]
• 54. Sensor technologies for the detection and monitoring of endocrine-disrupting chemicals - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10083357/]
• 55. Multi-class method for biomonitoring of hair using gas... samples [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26427497/]
• 56. Current status of keratinized matrices in Toxicology: Comparison of hair and nails - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38853411/]
• 57. Multi-residue analysis of organic pollutants in hair and urine for matrices comparison - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25553512/]
• 58. Trace Elements | Sample Collection Protocol [https://www.traceelements.com/LabServices/SampleCollection.aspx]
• 59. Taking an Accurate Hair for HTMA – INTERCLINICAL... Sample [https://interclinical.com.au/htma-pathology/how-to-take-a-hair-sample/]
• 60. Multi-class method for biomonitoring of hair using gas... samples [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00216-015-9026-2]
• 61. The Use of Biomonitoring Data in Exposure and Human Health Risk Assessments - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1665402/]
• 62. An indoor passive monitoring programme to complement... [https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/jeea.2025.24]
• 63. The need for non - or minimally- invasive strategies and... biomonitoring [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9380408/]
• 64. Journal of Research in Pharmacy » Submission » Human... [https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jrespharm/issue/91538/1690594]
• 65. profiles and health risk Exposure of PBDEs in the... assessment [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40781575/]
• 66. Biomarkers in Drug Development: Classification and Applications | Harvard Medical School Professional, Corporate, and Continuing Education [https://learn.hms.harvard.edu/programs/biomarkers-drug-development-classification-and-applications]
• 67. A dexterous fluorescence sensor for diversified-biomarker detection using cyclic EDC–CHA (EDCHA) system | Analytical Sciences [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44211-025-00791-z]
• 68. | PPT Matrix Effect [https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/matrix-effect-7614914/7614914]
• 69. demystified: Strategies for resolving challenges in... Matrix effects [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37897324/]
• 70. Understanding The Matrix in Bioprocessing - Batavia Effect [https://bataviabiosciences.com/matrix-effect/]
• 71. in LC–ESI–MS/MS Analysis of a Mitigating ... Matrix Effects Urinary [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10949524/]
• 72. 4 Considerations in the Design of Biomonitoring Studies [https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11700/chapter/6]
• 73. A practical guide to sample preparation for liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry in clinical research and toxicology | Spectroscopy Europe/World [https://www.spectroscopyeurope.com/article/practical-guide-sample-preparation-liquid-chromatography-tandem-mass-spectrometry-clinical]
• 74. Analytical methods and biomonitoring results in hair for the... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38417485/]
• 75. Swabs vs. Blood Samples for DNA Testing | AlphaBiolabs UK [https://www.alphabiolabs.co.uk/learning-centre/swabs-vs-blood-samples-for-dna-testing/]
• 76. Investigating passive eDNA samplers and submergence times for marine surveillance - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11890302/]
• 77. Comparison of non-invasive sampling methods for detection of HPV in rural African women - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1744971/]
• 78. Evaluation of bladder stimulation as a non - invasive technique for urine... [https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-019-3914-2]
• 79. Recent advances of mass spectrometry-based analytical methods for endocrine disrupting chemicals in human matrices - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165993624000050]
• 80. 8 Stability – Validation of liquid chromatography mass spectrometry... [https://sisu.ut.ee/lcms_method_validation/8-stability/]
• 81. Microsampling to Measure Anticancer Drugs and Their Metabolites [https://www.neoteryx.com/microsampling-blog/microsampling-to-measure-anticancer-drugs-and-their-metabolites]
• 82. Biological Matrix Effects in Quantitative Tandem Mass Spectrometry-Based Analytical Methods: Advancing Biomonitoring - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4695332/]
• 83. Bioinformation and Monitoring Technology for Environmental DNA Analysis: A Review - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12384077/]
• 84. A novel, fast and sensitive supercritical fluid chromatography-tandem... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2018/an/c8an00788h]
• 85. Non-invasive matrices in human biomonitoring: a review - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18951632/]
• 86. Human biological monitoring of suspected endocrine-disrupting compounds - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3901881/]
• 87. Strategies for the Detection and Elimination of Matrix Effects in Quantitative LC–MS Analysis | LCGC International [https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/strategies-detection-and-elimination-matrix-effects-quantitative-lc-ms-analysis]
• 88. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals exposure: cardiometabolic health risk in humans - Cardiovascular Diabetology [https://cardiab.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12933-025-02938-8]
• 89. Human participants in research – UKRI [https://www.ukri.org/manage-your-award/good-research-resource-hub/human-research-participants/]
• 90. Human Subjects Protections | Glossary | Research Ethics & Compliance [https://research-compliance.umich.edu/glossary/human-subjects-protections]
• 91. A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals | Environmental Health | Full Text [https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-016-0156-6]
• 92. Evaluation of non - invasive of... biomonitoring [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6482822/]
• 93. Frontiers | A novel non - invasive sweat lactate biosensor and its... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2025.1661224/full]
• 94. Genetic and epigenetic biomarkers in human biomonitoring: why needed and how can Oxford Nanopore sequencing contribute? - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40666150/]
• 95. Exposure Indices (BEI) Introduction - ACGIH Biological [https://www.acgih.org/science/tlv-bei-guidelines/biological-exposure-indices-bei-introduction/]
• 96. analysis for the Hair of pesticide biomonitoring ... exposure [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28011991/]
• 97. Expanding Human Hair for PFAS: Broadening Analyte... Biomonitoring [https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/expanding-human-hair-biomonitoring-for-pfas-broadening-analyte-coverage-to-emerging-compounds]
• 98. - Occupational Hygiene Consultants Biological Monitoring [https://occupational-hygiene.co.uk/biological-monitoring/]
• 99. to BTEX, Internal External Response, and... Exposure Biomarker [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8775548/]
• 100. Machine learning-based biomarkers identification from toxicogenomics – Bridging to regulatory relevant phenotypic endpoints - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389421021099]
• 101. Advances in solid-phase microextraction for detecting endocrine disrupting compounds in environmental and biological matrices - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165993625002407]
• 102. Solid Phase Extraction - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/solid-phase-extraction]
• 103. The role of microextraction techniques in occupational exposure assessment. A review - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0026265X19310197]
• 104. A review of the modern principles and applications of solid-phase extraction techniques in chromatographic analysis - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9659506/]
• 105. evaluation of liquid-liquid Comparative , extraction - solid ... phase [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24209357/]
• 106. Performance comparison between solid and... phase extraction [https://jast-journal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40543-021-00296-0]
• 107. Market Size, Share & Trends Report 2026-2035 Solid Phase Extraction [https://www.researchnester.com/reports/solid-phase-extraction-market/6913]
• 108. Non-invasive matrices in human biomonitoring: A review - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160412008001992]
• 109. Harmonised guidelines for single- laboratory | OIV validation [https://www.oiv.int/standards/compendium-of-international-methods-of-wine-and-must-analysis/annex-e/annex-e-laboratory-quality-assurance/harmonised-guidelines-for-single-laboratory-validation]
• 110. Non-Invasive Electrochemical Biosensors Operating in Human Physiological Fluids - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7664326/]
• 111. FAQ : About Reference (RMs) and Materials ... Certified Reference [https://www.kimia.gov.my/en/faq-about-reference-materials-rms-and-certified-reference-materials-crms/]
• 112. Calibration, Qualification & Validation [https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/applications/analytical-chemistry/calibration-qualification-and-validation]