In-Utero Exposure to Electronic Waste Heavy Metals and Adverse Pregnancy and Neonatal Outcomes: A Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an important paper that adds to the body of literature around an important topic. There are minor changes needed, mainly that the paper needs references for many of the assertions the author makes.
Line 67 re: recycling often performed without PPE, emissions that contaminate nearby communities – are there studies with ambient air or drinking water levels? This assertion needs some kind of reference beyond a general overview document.
Line 92 makes a bold statement with only one exposure study as evidence.
Line 109 – ref is a policy paper but the statement is about exposure.
Line 116 – the ref is a news article. Need to ref the actual study.
Line 184 – conducted the search on only one day. Its hard to fathom that the entire search was limited to just one day. Need to make that clear.
Lines 232-233 – need some type of statement about how these variables affect neonatal health outcomes, even a general phrase like: “all known to potentially affect birth outcomes.”
Line 312 – the term “incorrect” is not the best one. Choose something else such as “non-relevant”
Line 393 – the statement about the major drivers for exposure needs a reference as do the assertions in the following two sentences.
Lines 403-408 – are there any references for these suggestions?
Line 419 – needs references
Line 424 – the word “guaranteeing” is too strong and is inaccurate. Consider something like “helping to assure” or “increasing confidence “
Line 431 – the phrase “I found to be true” should be removed.
Line 431-433 – Should include a reflection on what the use of only one reviewer might mean for this analysis. Do you feel your findings are sound in spite of using only one reviewer or do you think the review should be repeated using a reviewer group?
Lines 473-486 – Are there any references to support your recommendations?
Line 489 – use of the word “valid” is incorrect in this context. Also, the statement that research should be done to agree with my findings (“to ensure that further research agrees with this conclusion”) is not correct. Research should be done to assess whether your findings are confirmed, have external validity and are generalizable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, it is a very interesting manuscript, and one of general interest given the issues it addresses.
However, the manuscript is overly descriptive in most of its sections, which makes it difficult to follow the scientific narrative clearly and coherently.
This tendency toward description hinders analysis and, in my view, reduces the academic impact of the work.
Therefore, I recommend restructuring the content to achieve a more fluid organization.
Prioritize the integration of information from a more scientific rather than narrative perspective.
Emphasize the most relevant findings.
Attached are some specific observations organized by section. I hope my observations will help improve the manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has certainly improved substantially.
Most of the comments have been incorporated.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your thoughtful review and feedback throughout this process. I sincerely appreciate your time, guidance, and recognition of the improvements made to the manuscript. Your comments were extremely helpful in strengthening the clarity, consistency, and overall quality of the paper.
