Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(3)
Blood and urine are the most frequently used matrices for exposure assessment using biomonitoring.
Blood and urine samples are the most common matrices for exposure monitoring, but methods are available to measure some biomarkers in other matrices such as exhaled breath and breast milk.
In contrast, assessments of the relation between environmental contaminants and the thyroid status of newborns have resulted in equivocal findings, possibly because of differences in the biological matrices for exposure determination (blood, plasma, placenta, or breast milk), the contaminants measured, and the congener grouping as well as the timing of postnatal TH dosage (Maervoet et al. 2007).
Similar(57)
While washing procedures have been shown to differentiate between endogenous and exogenous exposure, caution remains necessary in the interpretation of using hair as a non-invasively collected matrix for exposure [ 63].
The relatively weak association between administered oral gavage dose of DEP and MPB and the serum concentrations of their biomarkers exemplifies why there is growing concern about the use of the proper biologic matrix for exposure assessment (Calafat et al. 2013).
An important question relates to the choice of suitable biological matrices for assessing exposure during this period.
Also urine, finger/toenails, or human milk have repeatedly been used as suitable matrices of exposure for metals.
MnH is controversial as a biomarker of exposure, with some groups suggesting that hair is not an appropriate matrix for estimating exposure to metals (Rodrigues and Batista 2008).
Dried blood spots may provide a potential matrix for assessing exposure to certain PFCs.
In recent years researchers have increasingly used blood as a matrix for characterizing exposure to nonpersistent chemicals.
Our study suggests that handwipes may be a better matrix for examining exposure to contaminants found in dust than collecting dust itself, at least for the pentaBDE congeners evaluated in this study.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com