I would normally think the use of control group is usually to test whether the theorized effect is in fact due to the measurement. But since you described a logistic regression this way, I would probably go with including the level and the change in the measurement for the last 24 hours. That is,
$$Y \sim Z_k +X_{0} + \Delta X_1 + \Delta X_2 + \Delta X_3 + \Delta X_4 + \epsilon $$
where $Z_k$ is your other predictors, $X_0$ is your initial measurement, and $\Delta X$'s are the change with respect to the last measurement. This is slightly different than Gregg H's 2nd suggestion in that I put the measurement directly, not the mean of measurements. It is different than Gregg H's 1st suggestion in that I used the level variable once, not to complicate the inference of the level variables and to avoid possible near multicollinearity.
Another possibility is that if you have a theoretical curve on the supposed concentration levels, then you might choose to do a separate estimation to fit the time-varying values into the curve and include the estimated parameters of that fit in your logistic regression. Or as Gregg H suggested, you might choose to calculate deviations from the theoretical curve.
I guess which model to use exactly would depend on the field knowledge, such as the confidence in measurement levels (if the measurement has large error bands, than perhaps take a mean of all measurements and use only the mean), whether concentrations are taken on specific times of the day (if the measurement is not exactly periodic and the concentration is expected to change within the day, then perhaps take a mean). My first suggestion is more intuitive when, for instance, the changes are supposed to indicate some probability of cancer, and the exact level may or may not be important. Or as Gregg H suggested, it could be the deviations from a population, not the change themselves, which might be important.