Next Article in Journal
Toxicity Effects and Mechanisms of MgO Nanoparticles on the Oomycete Pathogen Phytophthora infestans and Its Host Solanum tuberosum
Next Article in Special Issue
Reduced Birth Weight and Exposure to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: A Review of Possible Underlying Mechanisms Using the AOP-HelpFinder
Previous Article in Journal
Mitochondria-Mediated Apoptosis and Autophagy Participate in Buprofezin-Induced Toxic Effects in Non-Target A549 Cells
Previous Article in Special Issue
Concurrent Assessment of Phthalates/HEXAMOLL® DINCH Exposure and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Performance in Three European Cohorts of the HBM4EU Aligned Studies
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Glyphosate and AMPA in Human Urine of HBM4EU-Aligned Studies: Part B Adults

1
Unit Health, VITO, Flemish Institute for Technological Research, 2400 Mol, Belgium
2
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Santé Publique France, 94415 Saint-Maurice, France
3
Faculty of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Iceland, 102 Reykjavik, Iceland
4
Faculty of Medicine, University of Iceland, 102 Reykjavik, Iceland
5
Swiss Tropical and Public Health institute, 4123 Allschwil, Switzerland
6
Department of Public Health, University of Basel, 4056 Basel, Switzerland
7
German Environment Agency (UBA), 06844 Dessau-Roßlau, Germany
8
Instituto de Salud Carlos III, National Centre for Environmental Health, 28220 Madrid, Spain
9
Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, 5000 Odense, Denmark
10
Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Antwerp, 2610 Antwerp, Belgium
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Toxics 2022, 10(10), 552; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10100552
Submission received: 7 September 2022 / Accepted: 14 September 2022 / Published: 21 September 2022

Abstract

:
Within HBM4EU, human biomonitoring (HBM) studies measuring glyphosate (Gly) and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) in urine samples from the general adult population were aligned and quality-controlled/assured. Data from four studies (ESB Germany (2015–2020); Swiss HBM4EU study (2020); DIET-HBM Iceland (2019–2020); ESTEBAN France (2014–2016)) were included representing Northern and Western Europe. Overall, median values were below the reported quantification limits (LOQs) (0.05–0.1 µg/L). The 95th percentiles (P95) ranged between 0.24 and 0.37 µg/L urine for Gly and between 0.21 and 0.38 µg/L for AMPA. Lower values were observed in adults compared to children. Indications exist for autonomous sources of AMPA in the environment. As for children, reversed dosimetry calculations based on HBM data in adults did not lead to exceedances of the ADI (proposed acceptable daily intake of EFSA for Gly 0.1 mg/kg bw/day based on histopathological findings in the salivary gland of rats) indicating no human health risks in the studied populations at the moment. However, the controversy on carcinogenicity, potential endocrine effects and the absence of a group ADI for Gly and AMPA induce uncertainty to the risk assessment. Exposure determinant analysis showed few significant associations. More data on specific subgroups, such as those occupationally exposed or living close to agricultural fields or with certain consumption patterns (vegetarian, vegan, organic food, high cereal consumer), are needed to evaluate major exposure sources.

1. Introduction

Glyphosate (Gly; C3H8NO5P) was initially developed as a chelating agent to remove mineral deposits in water pipes [1]. Later, it was patented as a herbicide for agricultural use. Now, it is the most widely used plant protection product worldwide [2]. In Argentina for example, Gly use has increased over the years, especially in the Pampas region, typically for soy production. In the EU, Gly is currently approved until December 2022 [3]. Already in 1993, Gly was detected in human urine in the US [4]. Overall, human exposure data in the EU are limited [5] and health effects, especially cancer, remain unclear up to this point. IARC has classified Gly as probably carcinogenic (Group 2A) [6], while the EU regulatory agencies consider its aquatic toxicity as the basis for regulation [7]. More human exposure data and epidemiological studies analysing associations with health effects are warranted. HBM4EU (www.hbm4eu.eu; accessed on 1 August 2022) addressed the human exposure side of the problem, and human biomonitoring (HBM) data on Gly and AMPA (main metabolite of Gly and main degradation product of glyphosate in the environment) were analysed in adults and children of various EU countries. This manuscript contains the results for adults. The results for children are described in detail in Buekers et al. (2022) [8].

2. Methods

2.1. Data

Data on Gly and AMPA in urine of adults were obtained in HBM4EU-aligned studies from Germany (UBA ESB; 2015–2020), Switzerland (Swiss TPH HBM4EU study; 2020), France (ESTEBAN; 2014–2016) and Iceland (DIET-HBM; 2019–2020). The study designs are described in Gilles et al. (2021) [9] and characteristics of study participants and ethics can be found in Gilles et al. (2022) [10]. The Swiss HBM4EU study, DIET-HBM and ESTEBAN are nationally representative campaigns.
Samples were analysed by harmonised methods in sometimes different laboratories. Biomarker data were quality-assured/controlled following a strict schedule [11]. All data were included for analysis of exposure determinants and risk assessment. Values below the LOQ (limit of quantification) were not imputed for Gly or AMPA because quantification rates were low (below 50% in most studies).
Samples with creatinine concentration ≥5 mg/dL and a specific gravity of 1.001 to 1.020 were defined as acceptable. Urine of healthy persons would be unlikely to be excluded using these criteria [12]. These criteria were used for all data.
In the German study, Gly and AMPA were measured in 24 h urine, whereas in the other studies, spot urine or first morning urine samples were used. Spot urine and morning urine give a glimpse of exposure to a substance and might not be representative for 24 h exposure when being calculated to the total excreted amount for a day. This is especially a limitation for relatively short half-life chemicals, such as Gly (half-life 5–10 h, [13]). Instead of recalculating all data to a 24 h scale, we decided to use the measured concentrations as such (independent of the type of urine sample) for addressing associated exposure determinants.
Potential determinants of exposure variability were obtained through questionnaires from the specific studies. Questionnaires collected within the new and ongoing HBM campaigns under HBM4EU were harmonized. As some HBM campaigns were ongoing, variables were harmonized post factum. As a consequence, not all studies provided information on the same variables. For upcoming HBM studies, basic and substance-specific questionnaires are made available and can be used [14].

2.2. Identifying Determinants of Exposure

Statistical analyses were performed in SPSS Statistics 28. In a first step, the individual studies were analysed separately. For assessing the determinants of variability of Gly and AMPA concentrations, both variables were dichotomized (value 0 for values below LOQ and value 1 for values above according to the LOQs in the individual studies). A logistic regression model was applied to analyse exposure determinants. Single variables (or determinants) which might explain differences in Gly or AMPA concentrations were studied with matrix (spot, morning or 24 h urine), BMI and creatinine forced into the model. BMI was forced into the model because of the possible association with creatinine. Determinants considered were individual characteristics, dietary preferences, exposure relevant behaviour (e.g., use of pesticides) and sociodemographic information (see Supplementary Material Tables S1 and S2 for detailed information). Secondly, a logistic multiple regression model was built including all variables with p-value ≤0.2 in the former analysis for each study separately. By backward selection, starting with excluding the variable with highest p, only those variables with p ≤ 0.05 were kept in the analysis. Thirdly, in a final logistic regression model, data from all studies were combined and analysed as a single dataset. A value of 0.1 µg/L was applied as the LOQ limit (threshold) for all studies. Country was included in the model as a covariate. Determinants of variability were assessed one at a time (see Tables S1 and S2). No logistic multiple regression with backward selection was performed for all studies combined as not all determinants were available for all studies (see Tables S1 and S2).

2.3. Risk Assessment

IARC classified Gly as probably carcinogenic (group 2A) [6] while ECHA classified Gly again as a non-carcinogen [15]. This controversy remains debated. No HBM guidance value for exposure to Gly exists yet. Based on reversed dosimetry, external exposure values were estimated for Gly [16]. The predicted daily intake (PDI) was compared with the acceptable daily intake (ADI). The main assumptions made are described in Buekers et al. (2022) [8]. Briefly, for calculation of the PDI as percentage of the ADI, the urine concentration of Gly was multiplied by the volume of urine, divided by the body weight multiplied by urinary excretion fraction (FUE) of Gly and by the proposed ADI of EFSA (Equation (1)). The FUE is the urinary excretion fraction. It is the ratio of the mass of glyphosate excreted in urine over the mass of glyphosate ingested assuming a constant mass balance. This results in the predicted daily intake of Gly expressed as percentage of the ADI.
% A D I = G l y c o n c   × V o l u r i n e b w × F U E × A D I = P D I A D I
where Glyconc is the concentration of glyphosate measured in urine; Volurine is standardized as 2 L/day for adults; bw is bodyweight which is standardized at 75 kg; the FUE is set at 0.57% [17]; and ADI is the acceptable daily intake allowance for Gly (proposed by EFSA to be reduced to 0.1 mg/kg bw/day; Point of Departure, PoD = NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day based on histopathological findings in the salivary gland in a 2-year rat study, to which a standard assessment factor of 100 was applied [18]). The current ADI of EFSA is 0.5 mg/kg bw/day, but it is proposed by EFSA to reduce it to 0.1 mg/kg bw/day [18]. Using urinary P95 values for Glyconc (reasonable worst case), we calculated PDI values and compared these to the ADI.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Exposure

An overview of Gly and AMPA measured in the HBM4EU-aligned studies is presented in Table 1 and Table 2. The results are discussed and compared with published studies from Europe found in the international literature (Table 3).
HBM4EU data showed that the exposure is widespread in the EU. In general, median concentrations below LOQ were observed in the HBM4EU studies for Gly and AMPA (Table 1 and Table 2). At the higher end of the exposure distribution, the highest concentrations (µg/L) were observed for Gly in Iceland (P95 0.37 µg/L) and for AMPA in France (P95 0.42 µg/L) (Table 1 and Table 2). When data are compared to existing data (Table 3), P95 values for Gly varied between 0.24 and 1.25 µg/L and for AMPA between 0.21 and 1.54 µg/L. The greatest P95 values for Gly (1.25 µg/L) and AMPA (1.54 µg/L) were from the study of Conrad et al. (2017) for the year 2013 (years sampled: 2001 to 2015). When a comparison is drawn with data in children [8] of the HBM4EU aligned studies, the P95 were in the same order of magnitude for children and adults but higher in children (results of combined data regardless of result QA/QC: Children: Gly 0.51 µg/g crt or 0.48 µg/L and AMPA 0.45 µg/g crt or 0.47 µg/L; Adults: Gly 0.30 µg/g crt or 0.29 µg/L and AMPA 0.30 µg/g crt or 0.33 µg/L (Table 1 and Table 2)). In Figure 1, P50 and P95 values are presented for children and adults of the different studies. For France, it was shown in the study of ESTEBAN that the P95 for Gly was equal to 0.35 µg/g crt (95%CI: 0.15 to 0.75) in adults and 0.84 µg/g crt (95% CI: 0.53 to 1.51) in children. For AMPA, this was 0.38 µg/g crt (95%CI: 0.29 to 0.44) in adults and 0.59 µg/g crt (95%CI: 0.48 to 0.76) in children. Children have a higher ingestion of food and drink per kilogram bodyweight in relation to adults. They play outdoors and are probably more exposed to pesticides in the outdoor environment. The difference in P95 between children and adults shows that care should be taken for susceptible groups like children. Although the results represent the selected studies, they give an indication of the EU exposure. HBM4EU substantially contributed to providing exposure data within the EU, nevertheless, exposure data on Gly and AMPA in children, especially those living close to agricultural fields, remain limited even though they are a vulnerable population. Limited exposure data from the US showed arithmetic mean values between 0.28 and 0.61 µg/L in children [26,27,28] with even a geometric mean value in one study of 2.5 µg/L for children of non-farming households [29]. Concentrations were higher in children than in adults of the US, however, only limited data were available [28,29].

3.2. AMPA to Glyphosate Ratio (AMPA/Gly)

In the HBM4EU-aligned studies, the ratio at molar basis of AMPA vs. glyphosate was analysed for samples >LOQ in adults (n = 97) (Figure 2). The AMPA/Gly ratio for creatinine-corrected concentrations varied between 0.2 and 9.0, with an average value of 1.8. The ratio decreased with increasing Gly. When regressing AMPA (ln µg/g creatinine) on the Y-axis against Gly (ln µg/g creatinine) on the X-axis, the slope of the linear fit is smaller than 1 (p < 0.001). When the regression line is compared with results in children (Figure 3), it can be seen that these are similar. Slopes vary between 0.35 and 0.39 and the intercept between −3.9 and −3.8 (Figure 2 and Figure 3).
The intercept on the left shows that at low Gly concentrations, there is still AMPA present in urine. This observation indicates the existence of ‘autonomous’ origins of AMPA (independent of metabolism of GLY to AMPA in the monitored participants). As discussed in Buekers et al. (2022), this may be a consequence of AMPA being present in the environment from glyphosate or from other sources such as amino-polyphosphonates [30].

3.3. Risk Assessment (RA)

There is still a conflict of opinions between IARC and the EU agencies on the carcinogenicity of Gly, as the ECHA RAC has just concluded in May 2022 in its scientific opinion that it is not justifiable to classify GLY as carcinogenic. The assumption made regarding hazard identification might very well influence the hazard characterization due to differing sensitivities to different endpoints. The proposed ADI of 0.1 mg/kg bw/day is not exceeded. For the HBM4EU studies, the %ADI was at maximum 1.73%, starting from P95 exposure values (Table 4). In a farmworker population and a general population living close to agricultural fields, the predicted daily intake may be closer to the proposed ADI. A group ADI is proposed, seeing a similar toxicological profile for AMPA and Gly [31,32].
Associations between health effects and exposure to Gly have been discussed in multiple studies. There are controversies on the carcinogenicity and endocrine disruption [6,33,34] and recent findings show associations with reproductive effects [35,36,37,38]. Additionally, the gut microbiome may be influenced [39,40]. Glyphosate affects a metabolic pathway in plants (shikimate) that human cells do not have. However, gut microbes possess this pathway to synthesize tryptophan, tyrosine and phenylaniline necessary for building human proteins, including vitamin B and neurotransmitters. A conservative estimate from Leino and colleagues shows that 54% of species in the core human gut microbiome are sensitive to Gly [41]. Gut health may also have an influence on brain function via the gut-brain axis [42]. Overall, there is a need for new studies exploring the links between glyphosate and human health effect markers at environmentally relevant concentrations alone or in combination with other pollutants, searching for links with observed effects found in animal and in vitro studies (e.g., Vardakas et al., 2022) [43].

3.4. Exposure Determinants

Biomarker concentrations of urinary Gly and AMPA levels were higher in the HBM4EU-aligned studies for children compared to adults. Moreover, exposure determinants might differ between children and adults, given differences in dietary consumption patterns and behaviour.
Among the HBM4EU-aligned studies, the logistic multiple regression model—adjusted for sex, BMI, crt—in adults did show that for the German ESB study, a higher frequency of consumption of fruit and vegetables resulted in higher concentrations of internal Gly (Table 5). When sex was removed from the model, the frequency of fruit/vegetable consumption was not significant anymore (p > 0.05). Glyphosate concentrations were significantly higher in males than in females in UBA ESB (See Table S1 Supplementary Material). For the Swiss study, the logistic multiple regression model did show lower Gly concentrations in employed persons compared to non-employed persons. The reason here is unknown, but there is a significant positive association between ISCED and occupational status. Differences in socioeconomic status, for which ISCED is an indicator, may have an influence on chemical exposure [44]. Finally, the study in Iceland did show higher concentrations in vegetarians, although the number of vegetarians was small (n = 5) and the confidence interval on the odds ratio (OR) was large (Table 5). All models remained significant when BMI was omitted from the model. No other significant associations (p < 0.05) were observed in the logistic multiple regression models with backward selection.
No significant associations with the consumption of cereals, a known source of Gly, was found (Tables S1 and S2). For the combined studies, no significant effect of fruit and vegetable consumption on internal Gly or AMPA concentrations was found. Overall, when data of the different studies were combined, logistic regression did not show clear and significant associations with exposure determinants.
Exposure determinants in adults have been reported previously. In a cross-sectional study, Soukup et al. (2020) reported a positive correlation between the consumption of pulses and urinary Gly levels, based on quantifiable amount of Gly in 8% (n = 25) of the samples [21]. In Europe, the highest Gly loads in food were reported for pulses and cereals, although only 2–3% of the food items contained quantifiable amounts of Gly between 2015 and 2017 [45,46,47,48]. In Denmark, Gly residues have been found in barley, wheat grain, wheat flour, oat grain, cornflakes, dried lentils and chickpeas, all below the current maximum residue level [24]. Conrad et al. (2017) found in their study of participants in the ESB (Environment Specimen Bank) that vegetarians/vegans (n = 10; low participation of males) did not have higher concentrations of Gly or AMPA, which was against the expectations [23]. In an older German and Danish study, significantly higher concentrations of Gly were observed in people consuming conventional food versus people who ate predominantly an organic diet [49]. Ruiz et al. (2021) did find that eggs and fruit were main predictors for Gly exposure in adults [19]. High frequency of physical exercise or a residence remote from agricultural activities were also associated with lower levels of Gly. The tendency with physical exercise was also found in the US study of John and Liu (2018), although not to a significant degree [50]. John and Liu (2018) did observe elevated levels of Gly in participants who had consumed tea in the past 24 h (US study) [50].
For children, associations were found with sex, age, BMI, distance to agricultural fields, sampling season, use of local food, consumption of nuts, wholegrain, educational level, parental pesticide use and presence of pets in the home [8,24,51,52]. These findings were not always consistent. There were also studies that did not find differences in Gly and AMPA exposure between population subgroups [48]. Hereby, it is observed that there are sometimes gaps in information about exposure determinants or that extra information is needed, e.g., detailed information on distance of living to agricultural fields, type of crops, application time and type of plant protection products, being vegetarian, frequency of organic food consumption, and this is required for a large subgroup of people to obtain enough statistical power to register the differences.

4. Conclusions

HBM4EU collected quality-controlled/assured HBM data on Gly and AMPA adult exposure in the EU. Overall, median values were below the reported LOQs in adults. The results are in line with what was found in published European studies. Children clearly experience higher exposure than adults. Data on the AMPA/Gly ratio support the existence of autonomous sources of AMPA. The discussion on the carcinogenic effects of Gly is still ongoing and risk assessment for non-carcinogenic effects comparing the ADI with the PDI did not show risks of Gly exposure in adults at the moment. Exposure determinants analysis showed some evidence that the consumption of fruit and vegetables and work status may play a role in the differences in observed Gly concentrations in the individual studies. However, a combination of data of different studies could not confirm this finding. More specific data on certain subgroups of persons living close to agricultural fields or being frequent consumers of certain food categories remain necessary, with an adequate number of people in the specific categories.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/toxics10100552/s1, Table S1: Logistic binary regression for urinary concentrations of glyphosate (Gly) by some potential exposure determinants, subgroups of the participants stratified for individual characteristics, dietary preferences, exposure relevant behavior and sociodemographic information; Table S2: Logistic regression for urinary concentrations of AMPA by some potential exposure determinants, subgroups of the participants stratified for individual characteristics, dietary preferences, exposure relevant behavior and sociodemographic information.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, J.B. (Jurgen Buekers); writing—review and editing, S.R., J.B. (Jos Bessems), E.G., L.R., M.R., T.I.H., K.Ó., N.P.-H., P.A., T.W., M.K.-G., M.E.-L., A.C., H.R.A. and G.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

HBM4EU is co-financed under Horizon 2020 (grant agreement No733032) and by national HBM programs. The funding of the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection is gratefully acknowledged. The Swiss participation in this European Program is funded by the Swiss State Secretary for Education Research and Innovation (SERI). ESTEBAN is funded by Santé Publique France and the French ministries of Health and the Environment. DIET-HBM is mainly financed by the National Directory of Health and the University of Iceland. The study received support from Public Health Fund.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The HBM4EU-aligned studies were conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and the study protocols were approved by ethical review boards in each of the participating countries with the approvals granted before recruiting the study participants. All studies of ethical concern were carried out according to existing guidance in ethics as specified in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights adopted by UNESCO’s General Conference on 19 October 2005, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine (1997) and as specified in the Helsinki Declaration (2000). Relevant legislation also included the Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data) and the new General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679; replacing directive 95/46/EC), adopted in April2016, enforceable starting on 25 May 2018.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the results can be found at www.HBM4EU.eu and https://www.hbm4eu.eu/what-we-do/european-hbm-platform/eu-hbm-dashboard/ (accessed on 1 August 2022).

Acknowledgments

HBM4EU is co-financed under Horizon 2020 (grant agreement No733032). The authors thank all investigators, collaborators and participants of the contributing studies for their participation and contribution to the joint HBM4EU survey and the national programme owners for their financial support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mesnage, R.; Antoniou, M.N. Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene—Contaminants, Forty Years of Glyphosate; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  2. ENDURE 2022 Update: Glyphosate Report. Available online: http://www.endure-network.eu/da/about_endure/all_the_news/2022_update_glyphosate_report_available_in_french (accessed on 1 August 2022).
  3. EC Status of Glyphosate in the EU. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/pesticides/approval-active-substances/renewal-approval/glyphosate_en (accessed on 1 August 2022).
  4. Perry, M.J.; Mandrioli, D.; Belpoggi, F.; Manservisi, F.; Panzacchi, S.; Irwin, C. Historical Evidence of Glyphosate Exposure from a US Agricultural Cohort. Environ. Health 2019, 18, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Antier, C.; Andersson, R.; Auskalniene, O.; Baric, K.; Baret, P.; Besenhofer, G.; Calha, I.; dos Santos, S.C.; de Cauwer, B.; Chachalis, D.; et al. A Survey on the Uses of Glyphosate in European Countries; INRAE: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  6. Tarazona, J.V.; Court-Marques, D.; Tiramani, M.; Reich, H.; Pfeil, R.; Istace, F.; Crivellente, F. Glyphosate Toxicity and Carcinogenicity: A Review of the Scientific Basis of the European Union Assessment and Its Differences with IARC. Arch. Toxicol. 2017, 91, 2723–2743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Kalofiri, P.; Balias, G.; Tekos, F. The EU Endocrine Disruptors’ Regulation and the Glyphosate Controversy. Toxicol. Rep. 2021, 8, 1193–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Buekers, J.; Remy, S.; Bessems, J.; Rambaud, L.; Riou, M.; Snoj Tratnik, J.S.; Stajnko, A.; Katsonouri, A.; Makris, K.; De Decker, A.; et al. Glyphosate and AMPA in Human Urine of European Aligned Human Biomonitoring Studies -HBM4EU Survey: Part A Children. Toxics 2022, submitted.
  9. Gilles, L.; Govarts, E.; Rambaud, L.; Vogel, N.; Castaño, A.; Esteban López, M.; Rodriguez Martin, L.; Koppen, G.; Remy, S.; Vrijheid, M.; et al. HBM4EU Combines and Harmonises Human Biomonitoring Data across the EU, Building on Existing Capacity—The HBM4EU Survey. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2021, 237, 113809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gilles, L.; Govarts, E.; Rodriguez Martin, L.; Andersson, A.M.; Appenzeller, B.M.; Barbone, F.; Castaño, A.; Coertjens, D.; Den Hond, E.; Dzhedzheia, V.; et al. Harmonisation of Human Biomonitoring Studies in Europe: Characteristics of the HBM4EU Aligned Studies Participants. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Esteban López, M.; Göen, T.; Mol, H.; Nübler, S.; Haji-Abbas-Zarrabi, K.; Koch, H.M.; Kasper-Sonnenberg, M.; Dvorakova, D.; Hajslova, J.; Antignac, J.P.; et al. The European Human Biomonitoring Platform—Design and Implementation of a Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Programme for Selected Priority Chemicals. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2021, 234, 113740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Barbanel, C.S.; Winkelman, J.W.; Fischer, G.A.; King, A.J. Confirmation of the Department of Transportation Criteria for a Substituted Urine Specimen. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2002, 44, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Connolly, A.; Jones, K.; Basinas, I.; Galea, K.S.; Kenny, L.; McGowan, P.; Coggins, M.A. Exploring the Half-Life of Glyphosate in Human Urine Samples. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2019, 222, 205–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. González-Alzaga, B.; Hernández, A.F.; Kim Pack, L.; Iavicoli, I.; Tolonen, H.; Santonen, T.; Vinceti, M.; Filippini, T.; Moshammer, H.; Probst-Hensch, N.; et al. The Questionnaire Design Process in the European Human Biomonitoring Initiative (HBM4EU). Environ. Int. 2022, 160, 107071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. ECHA. Available online: https://echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-no-change-proposed-to-hazard-classification#:~:text=ECHA’sCommitteeforRiskAssessment,acarcinogenisnotjustified (accessed on 2 June 2022).
  16. Sarigiannis, D.; Horvat, M. Report on the Optimal Methodology for Exposure Reconstruction from HBM Data Deliverable Report D 12.2 HBM4EU; 2017. Available online: https://www.hbm4eu.eu/work-packages/deliverable-12-2-report-on-the-optimal-methodology-for-exposure-reconstruction-from-hbm-data/ (accessed on 1 August 2022).
  17. Zoller, O.; Rhyn, P.; Zarn, J.A.; Dudler, V. Urine Glyphosate Level as a Quantitative Biomarker of Oral Exposure. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2020, 228, 113526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. EFSA. EFSA—Renewal Assessment Report—Open for Consultation; EFSA: Parma, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ruiz, P.; Dualde, P.; Coscollà, C.; Fernández, S.F.; Carbonell, E.; Yusà, V. Biomonitoring of Glyphosate and AMPA in the Urine of Spanish Lactating Mothers. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 801, 149688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Faniband, M.H.; Norén, E.; Littorin, M.; Lindh, C.H. Human Experimental Exposure to Glyphosate and Biomonitoring of Young Swedish Adults. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2021, 231, 113657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Soukup, S.T.; Merz, B.; Bub, A.; Hoffmann, I.; Watzl, B.; Steinberg, P.; Kulling, S.E. Glyphosate and AMPA Levels in Human Urine Samples and Their Correlation with Food Consumption: Results of the Cross-Sectional KarMeN Study in Germany. Arch. Toxicol. 2020, 94, 1575–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Connolly, A.; Leahy, M.; Jones, K.; Kenny, L.; Coggins, M.A. Glyphosate in Irish Adults—A Pilot Study in 2017. Environ. Res. 2018, 165, 235–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Conrad, A.; Schröter-Kermani, C.; Hoppe, H.W.; Rüther, M.; Pieper, S.; Kolossa-Gehring, M. Glyphosate in German Adults—Time Trend (2001 to 2015) of Human Exposure to a Widely Used Herbicide. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2017, 220, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Knudsen, L.E.; Hansen, P.W.; Mizrak, S.; Hansen, H.K.; Mørck, T.A.; Nielsen, F.; Siersma, V.; Mathiesen, L. Biomonitoring of Danish School Children and Mothers Including Biomarkers of PBDE and Glyphosate. Rev. Environ. Health 2017, 32, 279–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hoppe, H. Determination of Glyphosate Residues in Human Urine Samples from 18 European Countries; Medical Laboratory Bremen: Bremen, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  26. Trasande, L.; Aldana, S.I.; Trachtman, H.; Kannan, K.; Morrison, D.; Christakis, D.A.; Whitlock, K.; Messito, M.J.; Gross, R.S.; Karthikraj, R.; et al. Glyphosate Exposures and Kidney Injury Biomarkers in Infants and Young Children. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 256, 113334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sierra-Diaz, E.; Celis-de la Rosa, A.D.J.; Lozano-Kasten, F.; Trasande, L.; Peregrina-Lucano, A.A.; Sandoval-Pinto, E.; Gonzalez-Chavez, H. Urinary Pesticide Levels in Children and Adolescents Residing in Two Agricultural Communities in Mexico. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gillezeau, C.; Lieberman-Cribbin, W.; Taioli, E. Update on Human Exposure to Glyphosate, with a Complete Review of Exposure in Children. Environ. Health A Glob. Access Sci. Source 2020, 19, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Curwin, B.D.; Hein, M.J.; Sanderson, W.T.; Striley, C.; Heederik, D.; Kromhout, H.; Reynolds, S.J.; Alavanja, M.C. Urinary Pesticide Concentrations among Children, Mothers and Fathers Living in Farm and Non-Farm Households in Iowa. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2007, 51, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Grandcoin, A.; Piel, S.; Baurès, E. AminoMethylPhosphonic Acid (AMPA) in Natural Waters: Its Sources, Behavior and Environmental Fate. Water Res. 2017, 117, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. EFSA. Conclusion on the Peer Review of the Pesticide Risk Assessment of the Active Substance Glyphosate; EFSA: Parma, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  32. JMPR. Pesticide Residues in Food 2019-Evaluations 2019 Part I. In Proceedings of the 2019 EXTRA Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), Ottawa, ON, Canada,, 7–17 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
  33. de Araújo-Ramos, A.T.; Passoni, M.T.; Romano, M.A.; Romano, R.M.; Martino-Andrade, A.J. Controversies on Endocrine and Reproductive Effects of Glyphosate and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides: A Mini-Review. Front. Endocrinol. 2021, 12, 627210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Muñoz, J.P.; Bleak, T.C.; Calaf, G.M. Glyphosate and the Key Characteristics of an Endocrine Disruptor: A Review. Chemosphere 2021, 270, 128619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Parvez, S.; Gerona, R.R.; Proctor, C.; Friesen, M.; Ashby, J.L.; Reiter, J.L.; Lui, Z.; Winchester, P.D. Glyphosate Exposure in Pregnancy and Shortened Gestational Length: A Prospective Indiana Birth Cohort Study. Environ. Health 2018, 17, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Silver, M.K.; Fernandez, J.; Tang, J.; McDade, A.; Sabino, J.; Rosario, Z.; Vega, C.V.; Alshawabkeh, A.; Cordero, J.F.; Meeker, J.D. Prenatal Exposure to Glyphosate and Its Environmental Degradate, Aminomethylphosphonic Acid (AMPA), and Preterm Birth: A Nested Case-Control Study in the PROTECT Cohort (Puerto Rico). Environ. Health Perspect. 2021, 129, 57011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lesseur, C.; Pathak, K.V.; Pirrotte, P.; Martinez, M.N.; Ferguson, K.K.; Barrett, E.S.; Nguyen, R.H.N.; Sathyanarayana, S.; Mandrioli, D.; Swan, S.H.; et al. Urinary Glyphosate Concentration in Pregnant Women in Relation to Length of Gestation. Environ. Res. 2021, 203, 111811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lesseur, C.; Pirrotte, P.; Pathak, K.V.; Manservisi, F.; Mandrioli, D.; Belpoggi, F.; Panzacchi, S.; Li, Q.; Barrett, E.S.; Nguyen, R.H.N.; et al. Maternal Urinary Levels of Glyphosate during Pregnancy and Anogenital Distance in Newborns in a US Multicenter Pregnancy Cohort. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 280, 117002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mesnage, R.; Teixeira, M.; Mandrioli, D.; Falcioni, L.; Ducarmon, Q.R.; Zwittink, R.D.; Mazzacuva, F.; Caldwell, A.; Halket, J.; Amiel, C.; et al. Use of Shotgun Metagenomics and Metabolomics to Evaluate the Impact of Glyphosate or Roundup MON 52276 on the Gut Microbiota and Serum Metabolome of Sprague-Dawley Rats. Environ. Health Perspect. 2021, 129, 17005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mesnage, R.; Bowyer, R.C.E.; El Balkhi, S.; Saint-Marcoux, F.; Gardere, A.; Ducarmon, Q.R.; Geelen, A.R.; Zwittink, R.D.; Tsoukalas, D.; Sarandi, E.; et al. Impacts of Dietary Exposure to Pesticides on Faecal Microbiome Metabolism in Adult Twins. Environ. Health A Glob. Access Sci. Source 2022, 21, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Leino, L.; Tall, T.; Helander, M.; Saloniemi, I.; Saikkonen, K.; Ruuskanen, S.; Puigbò, P. Classification of the Glyphosate Target Enzyme (5-Enolpyruvylshikimate-3-Phosphate Synthase) for Assessing Sensitivity of Organisms to the Herbicide. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 408, 124556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Martin, C.R.; Osadchiy, V.; Kalani, A.; Mayer, E.A. The Brain-Gut-Microbiome Axis. Cell. Mol. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2018, 6, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Vardakas, P.; Veskoukis, A.S.; Rossiou, D.; Gournikis, C.; Kapetanopoulou, T.; Karzi, V.; Docea, A.O.; Tsatsakis, A.; Kouretas, D. A Mixture of Endocrine Disruptors and the Pesticide Roundup® Induce Oxidative Stress in Rabbit Liver When Administered under the Long-Term Low-Dose Regimen: Reinforcing the Notion of Real-Life Risk Simulation. Toxics 2022, 10, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Buekers, J.; Morrens, B.; Loots, I.; Ganzleben, C.; Schoeters, G. Inequalities in Chemical Exposure. In Environmental Health Inequalities in Europe: Second Assessment Report; WHO, Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2019; pp. 84–89. ISBN 978-92-890-5415-7. [Google Scholar]
  45. EFSA. The 2015 European Union Report on Pesticide Residues in Food. EFSA J. 2017, 15, e04791. [Google Scholar]
  46. EFSA. The 2016 European Union Report on Pesticide Residues in Food. EFSA J. 2018, 16, e05348. [Google Scholar]
  47. EFSA. The 2017 European Union Report on Pesticide Residues in Food. EFSA J. 2019, 17, e05743. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lemke, N.; Murawski, A.; Schmied-Tobies, M.; Rucic, E.; Hoppe, H.; Conrad, A.; Kolossa-Gehring, M. Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid (AMPA) in Urine of Children and Adolescents in Germany—Human Biomonitoring Results of the German Environmental Survey 2014–2017 (GerES V). Environ. Int. 2021, 156, 106769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Krüger, M.; Schledorn, P.; Schrödl, W.; Hoppe, H.-W.; Lutz, W.; Shehata, A.A. Detection of Glyphosate Residues in Animals and Humans. J. Environ. Anal. Toxicol. 2014, 4, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. John, J.; Liu, H. Glyphosate Monitoring in Water, Foods, and Urine Reveals an Association between Urinary Glyphosate and Tea Drinking: A Pilot Study. Int. J. Environ. Health Eng. 2018, 7, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Stajnko, A.; Snoj Tratnik, J.; Kosjek, T.; Mazej, D.; Jagodic, M.; Eržen, I.; Horvat, M. Seasonal Glyphosate and AMPA Levels in Urine of Children and Adolescents Living in Rural Regions of Northeastern Slovenia. Environ. Int. 2020, 143, 105985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ferreira, C.; Duarte, S.C.; Costa, E.; Pereira, A.M.P.T.; Silva, L.J.G.; Almeida, A.; Lino, C.; Pena, A. Urine Biomonitoring of Glyphosate in Children: Exposure and Risk Assessment. Environ. Res. 2021, 198, 111294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Glyphosate (Gly) and AMPA (µg/g crt) in adults and children of the aligned studies under HBM4EU. Panel (a) Gly and panel (b) AMPA. Data for children described in Buekers et al., 2022 [8]. Values below the LOQ were set at the LOQ/2 for presentation.
Figure 1. Glyphosate (Gly) and AMPA (µg/g crt) in adults and children of the aligned studies under HBM4EU. Panel (a) Gly and panel (b) AMPA. Data for children described in Buekers et al., 2022 [8]. Values below the LOQ were set at the LOQ/2 for presentation.
Toxics 10 00552 g001
Figure 2. HBM4EU harmonized data (Germany (UBA ESB), Switzerland (Swiss HBM4EU study), France (ESTEBAN), Iceland (DIET-HBM)) for glyphosate and AMPA in adults. Data (>LOQ) are expressed on a natural logarithmic scale. The 1:1 line (full line) is indicated. Panel (a): µg/L scale and panel (b): µg/g creatinine scale. Values below LOQ are not included.
Figure 2. HBM4EU harmonized data (Germany (UBA ESB), Switzerland (Swiss HBM4EU study), France (ESTEBAN), Iceland (DIET-HBM)) for glyphosate and AMPA in adults. Data (>LOQ) are expressed on a natural logarithmic scale. The 1:1 line (full line) is indicated. Panel (a): µg/L scale and panel (b): µg/g creatinine scale. Values below LOQ are not included.
Toxics 10 00552 g002
Figure 3. HBM4EU harmonized data (Belgium (3XG), Cyprus (ORGANIKO), Germany (GerES V-sub), Slovenia (SLO_CRP), France (ESTEBAN)) for glyphosate and AMPA in children. Data (>LOQ) are expressed on a natural logarithmic scale and corrected for creatinine. The 1:1 line (full line) is indicated. See also [8] for more information on the children’s studies.
Figure 3. HBM4EU harmonized data (Belgium (3XG), Cyprus (ORGANIKO), Germany (GerES V-sub), Slovenia (SLO_CRP), France (ESTEBAN)) for glyphosate and AMPA in children. Data (>LOQ) are expressed on a natural logarithmic scale and corrected for creatinine. The 1:1 line (full line) is indicated. See also [8] for more information on the children’s studies.
Toxics 10 00552 g003
Table 1. Urinary glyphosate (Gly) concentrations in adults from HBM4EU-aligned studies.
Table 1. Urinary glyphosate (Gly) concentrations in adults from HBM4EU-aligned studies.
StudySampling YearNAge Range (Years)Urine SampleMethod LOD Gly (µg/L)LOQ Gly (µg/L)%<LOQ dGly (µg/L)Creatinine-Adjusted Gly (µg/gcrt) eCreatinine
Median (P5 and P95) in mg/dL
P25P50P75P95P25P50P75P95
UBA ESB (Germany) a2015–202025020–2924 hGC/MS-MS 0.170<LOQ<LOQ0.110.29 0.100.3870 (33–174)
Swiss HBM4EU study (Switzerland) b202029920–39MorningLC/MS-MS 0.181<LOQ<LOQ<LOQ0.24 0.2598 (31–250)
DIET-HBM (Iceland) b2019–202019520–39SpotGC/MS-MS 0.171<LOQ<LOQ0.120.37 0.050.21127 (22–284)
ESTEBAN (France) a2014–201616920–39MorningLC/MS-MS0.020.0583<LOQ<LOQ<LOQ0.24 0.34102 (26–215)
Combined data c 0.29 0.30
a: Biomarker data generated before HBM4EU QA/QC program and comparability cannot be guaranteed (see Esteban López et al., 2021) [11]. b: Biomarker data quality assured by HBM4EU QA/QC program. c: results of all datasets combined regardless of result QA/QC program. d: Each study was compared to its own LOQ. e: Values <LOQ set to LOQ/2.
Table 2. Urinary AMPA concentrations in adults of the HBM4EU-aligned studies.
Table 2. Urinary AMPA concentrations in adults of the HBM4EU-aligned studies.
StudyLOD (µg/L)LOQ (µg/L)%<LOQ cAMPA (µg/L)Creatinine-Adjusted AMPA (µg/gcrt) d
P25P50P75P95P25P50P75P95
UBA ESB (DE) a 0.166<LOQ<LOQ0.130.34 0.130.37
Swiss HBM4EU study (CH) b 0.196<LOQ<LOQ<LOQ<LOQ
DIET-HBM (IS) b 0.177<LOQ<LOQ<LOQ0.37 0.24
ESTEBAN (FR) a0.020.05240.060.100.180.420.050.100.180.36
Combined data 0.33 0.30
a: Biomarker data generated before HBM4EU QA/QC program but deemed comparable (see Esteban López et al., 2021) [11]. b: Biomarker data quality assured by HBM4EU QA/QC program. c: Each study was compared to its own LOQ. d: Values <LOQ set to LOQ/2.
Table 3. Comparison with published European exposure data on urinary glyphosate (Gly) and AMPA concentrations in EU adults from the general population.
Table 3. Comparison with published European exposure data on urinary glyphosate (Gly) and AMPA concentrations in EU adults from the general population.
StudyCountrySampling YearPopulationUrine SampleMethodGly in µg/LAMPA in µg/L
LOQ/LOQAverageP95LOQ/LOQAverageP95
Ruiz et al., 2021 [19]Spain201697 breastfeeding mothers 25–45 yMorning urineLC/MS-MSLOQ = 0.1GM 0.120.62LOQ = 0.1GM 0.140.69
Faniband et al., 2021 [20]Sweden2017197 adults 18–19 ySpotLC/MS-MSLOD = 0.1Median < LOD0.24LOD = 0.1Median < LOD0.25
Soukup et al., 2020 [21]Germany2012–2013301 adults 18–80 y24 hLC/MS-MSLOQ = 0.2Median < LOQNALOQ = 0.2Median < LOQNA
Connolly et al., 2018 [22] **Ireland201750 adults, 18–82 ySpotLC/MS-MSLOQ = 0.5Median < LOQNANANANA
Conrad et al., 2017 [23] *Germany2001–2015399 adults, 20–29 y24 hGC/MS-MSLOQ = 0.1Median < LOQ to 0.110.12 to 1.25LOQ = 0.1Median < LOQ to 0.120.21 to 1.54
Knudsen et al., 2017 [24]Denmark201113 Mothers, 31–52 ySpotELISALOD = 0.0751AM 1.28NANANANA
Hoppe et al., 2013 [25]Europe2013182 adultsSpotGC/MS-MSLOQ = 0.15Median < LOQ0.92LOQ = 0.15Median < LOQ0.64
AM: arithmetic mean; GM: geometric mean; P95: 95th percentile; NA: not available. *: The study of Conrad et al. (2017) [23] covers different samples years over the period 2001 to 2015. **: Further studies are currently evaluating whole-family exposures (www.nuigalway.ie/image; accessed on 1 August 2022).
Table 4. Risk assessment of glyphosate (Gly) in adults of the general population based on HBM data (detection of Gly and AMPA with mass spectrometry).
Table 4. Risk assessment of glyphosate (Gly) in adults of the general population based on HBM data (detection of Gly and AMPA with mass spectrometry).
Ref.P95 Concentration GlyphosatePDIPDIPDI/ADI
µg/Lµg/dayµg/kg bw/day%
UBA ESB (DE)0.29=0.29 × 2/0.57% = 102=102/75 = 1.36=0.00136/0.1 = 1.36%
Swiss TPH (CH)0.24841.121.12%
DIET-HBM (IS)0.371301.731.73%
ESTEBAN (FR)0.24841.121.12%
Previous studies
Ruiz et al., 2021 [19]0.622182.902.90%
Faniband et al., 2021 [20]0.24841.121.12%
Conrad et al., 2017 [23] *1.254395.855.85%
Hoppe et al., 2013 [25]0.923234.304.30%
PDI: predicted daily intake; ADI: acceptable daily intake. Assumed bodyweight set at 75 kg, urinary volume at 2 L/day and FUE at 0.57%. ADI was set at 0.1 mg/kg bw/day. *: year 2013 selected.
Table 5. Logistic backward multiple regression glyphosate (Gly) and AMPA HBM4EU data.
Table 5. Logistic backward multiple regression glyphosate (Gly) and AMPA HBM4EU data.
StudyVariableOR = Exp(β)95%CIp Value
GlyUBA ESBIntercept0.03 0.103
Creatinine1.02(1.01;1.03)<0.001
BMI0.99(0.89;1.11)0.877
Sex2.77(1.42;5.41)0.003
Frequency consumption fruit/vegetables: sometimes and often *Ref (n = 41) 0.07
Frequency consumption fruit/vegetables: very often1.33 (n = 62)(0.48;3.70)
Frequency consumption fruit/vegetables: everyday2.51 (n = 147)(1.00;6.28)
Model <0.001
Swiss HBM4EU studyIntercept1.08
Creatinine1.01(1.00;1.01)<0.001
BMI0.91(0.82;1.00)0.05
Occupational status (not employed)Ref (n = 58)
Occupational status (employed)0.39 (n = 239)(0.20;0.77)0.007
Model <0.001
AMPADIET-HBMIntercept0.12 0.096
Creatinine1.01(1.01;1.02)<0.001
BMI0.99(0.92;1.08)0.973
Not vegetarianRef (n = 167)
Vegetarian7.68 (n = 5)(1.01;58.28)0.049
Model <0.001
OR: odds ratio. Reference or Exp(B) = 1. BMI, creatinine (crt) and matrix (morning, spot, 24 h urine) were forced into the model. *: Redistribution categories: “sometimes (n = 12)“ and “often (n = 29)” were combined and compared to “very often (n = 62)” and “everyday (n = 147)”. Only multiple regression models with p of less than or close to 0.05 shown in table.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Buekers, J.; Remy, S.; Bessems, J.; Govarts, E.; Rambaud, L.; Riou, M.; Halldorsson, T.I.; Ólafsdóttir, K.; Probst-Hensch, N.; Ammann, P.; et al. Glyphosate and AMPA in Human Urine of HBM4EU-Aligned Studies: Part B Adults. Toxics 2022, 10, 552. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10100552

AMA Style

Buekers J, Remy S, Bessems J, Govarts E, Rambaud L, Riou M, Halldorsson TI, Ólafsdóttir K, Probst-Hensch N, Ammann P, et al. Glyphosate and AMPA in Human Urine of HBM4EU-Aligned Studies: Part B Adults. Toxics. 2022; 10(10):552. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10100552

Chicago/Turabian Style

Buekers, Jurgen, Sylvie Remy, Jos Bessems, Eva Govarts, Loïc Rambaud, Margaux Riou, Thorhallur I Halldorsson, Kristin Ólafsdóttir, Nicole Probst-Hensch, Priska Ammann, and et al. 2022. "Glyphosate and AMPA in Human Urine of HBM4EU-Aligned Studies: Part B Adults" Toxics 10, no. 10: 552. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10100552

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop