Comparison of ELISA and MS/MS Methods for Urinary Glyphosate Analysis Reveals Overestimation and Poor Repeatability in Evaluated ELISA Methods
Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides, and its human health effects remain debated. Risk assessment requires robust human biomonitoring (HBM) data generated using validated analytical methods. However, recent population studies employing commercial enzyme-linked im
Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides, and its human health effects remain debated. Risk assessment requires robust human biomonitoring (HBM) data generated using validated analytical methods. However, recent population studies employing commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) have reported urinary glyphosate concentrations higher than those measured by mass spectrometry (MS), raising concerns about potential overestimation and data comparability. This study compares two MS/MS-based methods, including a novel ion chromatography-MS/MS approach, with two ELISA methods across external quality assessment (EQA) urine samples (n = 13), spiked urine samples (n = 3, 0.1–0.3 ng/mL), and real-world human urine samples (n = 40). The evaluated ELISA methods overestimated urinary glyphosate concentrations below 1 ng/mL in EQA and spiked samples and exhibited poor repeatability (often >20%) relative to MS/MS-based methods. Analyses of real-world samples confirmed this trend, with ELISA yielding higher quantification frequencies (70–100% vs 45–63%), higher median concentrations (1.06–1.10 vs 30%) than MS/MS methods. These findings indicate that the evaluated ELISA methods lack sufficient reliability for quantifying urinary glyphosate at concentrations relevant to nonoccupational exposure, where matrix-related interferences may compromise analytical performance. These results support the preferential use of MS/MS-based methods for generating robust HBM data in research and regulatory contexts.
Auteur(s) : Louyer Mari-Vorgan, Gérard Anne, Jabalot Cécile, Bouchart Valérie, Lanson Justine, Dereumeaux Clémentine, Pécheux Marie, Fillol Clémence, Denys Sébastien, Connolly Alison, Koch Holger-M, Mercier Fabien, David Arthur
Année de publication : 2026
Pages : 886 - 892
Site web de l'éditeurEn relation avec
Nos dernières actualités
actualité
7 août 2026Hantavirus Andes : mise en place des investigations épidémiologiques et du...
actualité
3 août 2026Prolongation de l’appel à candidatures pour le renouvellement du comité de...
actualité
24 juillet 2026Voyage en Outre-mer et à l’étranger : êtes-vous à jour de vos vaccins ?
Need ear, nose & throat in Europe?
Browse verified clinics with transparent pricing and real reviews across 30+ countries.
Source.
Santé publique France — Santé publique France, sous licence ouverte 2.0
Medical disclaimer.
Articles are general information aggregated from third-party medical sources. They are NOT a substitute for in-person diagnosis or treatment. For personal medical guidance, consult a verified clinician or call your local emergency line (112 in the EU).