Development of an analytical method for the targeted screening and multi-residue quantification of environmental contaminants in urine by liquid chromatography coupled to high resolution mass spectrometry for evaluation of human exposures

A Scoping Review on the Characteristics of Human Exposome Studies

“…Seventeen of the retained studies had a cross-sectional design (21%) [73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89], and twelve were experimental (15%) (i.e., three randomized trials on metabolomic profile alterations [90,91] or clinical health outcomes [92] following administration of the experimental exposure; two open label cross-over trials exploring metabolomic and clinical effects of an experimental (juice) [93,94] or environmental (airborne and grass pollen) intervention [95], and seven experimental non-randomized studies). Five studies were case-control (6%) [94,[96][97][98][99] and three case-control studies nested in cohorts (4%) [100][101][102].…”

“…Another study analyzed an environmental health exposure questionnaire using a novel statistical prediction method [75], whereas another evaluated a self-administered questionnaire on drug intake during pregnancy in comparison with drug urine screening using metabolomic methods [66]. Novel mass spectrometry techniques were presented for the detection of environmental contaminants in urine in two studies [49,76], and for metabolite structural examination in one [99]. Statistical methods and modelling were presented in one study to define distinct endogenous phenotypes of childhood asthma [89].…”

Trends in the application of high-resolution mass spectrometry for human biomonitoring: An analytical primer to studying the environmental chemical space of the human exposome

“…Protein precipitation of serum (Fan et al, 2014) and urine (McMahen et al, 2015), and enzymatic deconjugation of meconium (Ristimaa et al, 2010) and urine (Wang et al, 2014a) were sometimes included as a clean-up and pre-concentration step, respectively. In the case of urine analysis, there is a trend towards a dilute-and-shoot approach (Diaz et al, 2012) or absence of any treatment(Cequier et al, 2014) (Cortejade et al, 2016) (Carrizo et al, 2015). While this approach is suitable for metabolomics studies looking at endogenous metabolites that occur at relatively higher concentrations(Rappaport et al, 2014), this is not widely used for the untargeted analysis of low-level xenobiotics in human matrices due to matrix interferences.…”

“…Table 1 presents studies using LC-TOF MS or LC-QqTOF MS for studying human exposures to a broad spectrum of environmental chemicals (Baduel et al, 2015, Cortejade et al, 2016, Diaz et al, 2012, Andra et al, 2015), and specifically for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Bouchard et al, 2009, Marchese et al, 2004), pesticides/insecticides (Cequier et al, 2014, McMahen et al, 2015, Taira et al, 2013, Yamaguchi et al, 2012), drugs (Chittamma et al, 2013, Pragst et al, 2013, Ristimaa et al, 2010, Marin et al, 2014), polyfluorinated chemicals (Eom et al, 2014, Rotander et al, 2015), environmental tobacco smoke (Swinton DJ., 2011), antibiotics (Wang et al, 2015, Wang et al, 2014a), and personal care products (Wu et al, 2012). GC-TOF MS or GC-QqTOF MS was primarily applied for studying human exposures to persistent organic chemicals (Hernández et al, 2009b, Kazda et al, 2004, Focant et al, 2004, Megson et al, 2015, Fan et al, 2014).…”

“…This approach helps to quantify chemicals occurring at trace levels but is limited by covering only a small number of target analytes per run per sample. QqTOF MS was applied to the targeted quantification of 38 compounds of human exposure interest in urine, which included pesticides, veterinary drugs, UV filters, plastic additives, surfactants, and consumer and personal care products (Cortejade et al, 2016). Identification of the target analytes was based on comparison of the (i) isotopic pattern between theoretical and experimental spectra, (ii) retention time between analyte and a corresponding standard (±0.1 min), and (iii) mass error between theoretical and measured accurate mass (≤5 ppm).…”