Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Concerning the plausibility of the findings reported in ’Prenatal exposure to glycol ethers and cryptorchidism and hypospadias: a nested case–control study' by Smet and Kelsey: authors' response
  1. Charline Warembourg,
  2. Luc Multigner,
  3. Ronan Garlantézec
  1. Univ Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail) - UMR_S 1085, Rennes, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Charline Warembourg, Univ Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail) - UMR_S 1085, Rennes 35000, France; charline.warembourg{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We read with attention the letter from  Smet and Kelsey discussing the interpretation of our findings.

Smet and Kelsey1 questioned the validity of our findings regarding the high detection rate of methoxyacetic acid (MAA) we observed in our population despite the restriction in use of its precursors in Europe. First, human biomonitoring studies on glycol ether (GE) exposure in the non-occupational context are very few but other recent studies have also reported a high detection rate of MAA in the European general population in 2007–2009: MAA was detected in 99% and 100% of urine samples with a median concentration of 0.05 mg/L and 0.11 mg/L in a German2 and a French population,3 respectively. Second, regarding the sources of exposure to diethylene glycol monomethyl ether (DEGME) and triethylene glycol monomethyl ether (TEGME) as potential precursors of MAA …

View Full Text


  • Contributors CW, LM and RG prepared and wrote this reply letter.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Ethics approval CNIL, CCTIRS.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

  • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it first published online. References to ’Kelsey et al' have been changed to ’Smet and Kelsey' (as per reference 1).

Linked Articles