Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Exposure of hospitalised pregnant women to plasticizers contained in medical devices  
 
Version: 0 Date: 22 Nov 2016  
 
Reviewer: Evert Nieboer  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
1. The Introduction provides a good background for the study with clearly stated objectives.  
 
 
2. Lines 113 -4 suggest: 'The refere nces and characteristics of the MDs studied are 
summarized in Table 1.'  (Table is not a subject that acts)  
 
 
3. Line 130. Do you have evidence that the 1 -hour extraction period resulted in complete 
extraction, especially in the context of lines 293 -295?  
 
 
4. 4. Line155: insert 'ethics' before law.  
 
 
5. The figures are essential for understanding the comprehensive results data set. The 
clarity, once in print, of the x -axis labeling are in doubt because of the small letter size 
employed.  
 
 
6. Page 11, need caps as s hown: the Obstetrics Department of the University Hospital of 
Clermont -Ferrand.  
 
 
7. Line 270:  should it not be 'higher than 0.1%'  
 
 
8. Line 291 -3 suggest edit shown: this factor is not the one that best reflects the risk of 
contamination, as the number of MD s… 
 
 
 
Overall, this is a fine paper. My only serious concern is related to item 3 above, as this would 
have bearing on the GC -MS analysis results reported in Table 1.  
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the auth ors. 
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the edi tors. 
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the pa st five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this p aper?  
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the j ournal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree f or my report to be made available under a n Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commen ts 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal