Partington Jordan M, Cameron Maya, McLeod Maddison, Gooley Andrew, Watt Matthew J, Clarke Bradley O
Australian Laboratory for Emerging Contaminants, School of Chemistry, University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia.
Trajan Scientific and Medical, Ringwood, Victoria, 3134, Australia.
Anal Chim Acta. 2025 Oct 1;1369:344324. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2025.344324. Epub 2025 Jun 14.
Environmental contaminant human biomonitoring is a powerful risk assessment tool. Recent developments in the biomonitoring of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have incorporated the use of microsampling technologies for sample collection. Microsampling enables the collection of individual high-resolution biomonitoring data and access for previously under-represented populations by postal applications. Despite these advancements, a fundamental evaluation of microsamplings suitability to at-home sampling, postage and storage at room temperature has not been undertaken. Therefore, a comparison of microsampling technologies viability for large biomonitoring initiatives was undertaken.
Dried blood spots (DBS) (Whatman 903), volumetric absorptive microsampling (VAMS) (Neoteryx Mitra), and capillary action DBS (Neoteryx hemaPEN) were compared for sample stability, reproducibility and susceptibility to contamination in the home sampling environment and postage. Sample stability was evaluated by monitoring the change in PFAS recovery at set timepoints from sample collection. After 35 days, the change in individual PFAS was greater than 10 % for five PFAS by the hemaPEN, four by DBS and zero by the Mitra. Reproducibility and contamination susceptibility were evaluated by participants (n = 20) collecting horse blood samples in their homes. Each participant collected a 'blank' and 'spiked' blood sample with each device (n = 120), sending them by post to the Australian Laboratory for Emerging Contaminants (ALEC) for extraction and analysis. No contamination of blank samples was observed, with the Mitra and hemaPEN respectively retaining 45 and 37 of the 49 PFAS within 70-130 % recovery and less than 20 % RSD at 5 ng/mL when sampled at home, whereas DBS only retained 16 PFAS.
This study demonstrates the viability of blood microsampling for PFAS within the home and the stability of these samples throughout postage at ambient temperatures. The home sampling environment did not contaminate any of the microsampling devices tested. However, VAMS samples were the most stable and robust under these conditions and are well suited to at-home sampling applications and larger PFAS biomonitoring initiatives.
环境污染物人体生物监测是一种强大的风险评估工具。全氟和多氟烷基物质（PFAS）生物监测的最新进展纳入了使用微量采样技术进行样本采集。微量采样能够收集个体高分辨率生物监测数据，并通过邮政应用让以前代表性不足的人群也能参与。尽管有这些进展，但尚未对微量采样在家庭采样、邮寄和室温储存方面的适用性进行基本评估。因此，对大型生物监测计划中微量采样技术的可行性进行了比较。
比较了干血斑（DBS）（Whatman 903）、体积吸收微量采样（VAMS）（Neoteryx Mitra）和毛细作用干血斑（Neoteryx hemaPEN）在家庭采样环境和邮寄过程中的样本稳定性、重现性和污染易感性。通过监测从样本采集开始在设定时间点的PFAS回收率变化来评估样本稳定性。35天后，hemaPEN采集的五种PFAS、DBS采集的四种PFAS的个体PFAS变化大于10%，而Mitra采集的PFAS变化为零。通过参与者（n = 20）在家中采集马血样本评估重现性和污染易感性。每位参与者使用每种设备采集一份“空白”和“加标”血样（n = 120），通过邮寄将它们送到澳大利亚新兴污染物实验室（ALEC）进行提取和分析。未观察到空白样本受到污染，在家中采样时，Mitra和hemaPEN分别在70 - 130%的回收率内保留了49种PFAS中的45种和37种，在5 ng/mL时相对标准偏差小于20%，而DBS仅保留了16种PFAS。
本研究证明了在家中对PFAS进行血液微量采样的可行性以及这些样本在环境温度下整个邮寄过程中的稳定性。家庭采样环境未污染任何测试的微量采样设备。然而，在这些条件下，VAMS样本最稳定、最可靠，非常适合家庭采样应用和更大规模的PFAS生物监测计划。
