Exposure of patients to di(2-ethylhexy)phthalate (DEHP) and its metabolite MEHP during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy.

The plasticizer di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) is often used for PVC medical devices, that are also largely used for intensive care medical treatments, like extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy. Due to the toxicological potential of DEHP, the inner exposure of patients with this plasticizer is a strong matter of concern as many studies have shown a high leaching potential of DEHP into blood. In this study, the inner DEHP exposure of patients undergoing ECMO treatment was investigated. The determined DEHP blood levels of ECMO patients and the patients of the control group ranged from 31.5 to 1009 μg/L (median 156.0 μg/L) and from 19.4 to 75.3 μg/L (median 36.4 μg/L), respectively. MEHP blood levels were determined to range from < LOD to 475 μg/L (median 15.9 μg/L) in ECMO patients and from < LOD to 9.9 μg/L (median 3.7 μg/L) in the control group patients, respectively. Increased DEHP exposure was associated with the number of cannulas and membranes of the ECMO setting, whereas residual diuresis decreased the exposure. Due to the suspected toxicological potential of DEHP, its use in medical devices should be further investigated, in particular for ICU patients with long-term exposure to PVC, like in ECMO therapy.

Introduction

Modules of polyvinylchloride (PVC) are frequently used as components of medical devices [1]. PVC material contains a high share of plasticizers, which are not chemical bound to the PVC itself and can thus easily migrate into contact liquids [1, 2]. For the most prominent plasticizer di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) a high leachability from medical devices, like blood bags and transfusion lines, into blood has been demonstrated [3, 4, 5]. This may result in a considerable internal exposure of the patients. This is a strong cause of concern, as DEHP is potentially linked with several toxicological effects on humans. In particular, the suspected adverse developmental and reproductive effects of DEHP are a constant matter of concern [6, 7]. Additionally, DEHP in much higher values is classified as a carcinogen for which a non-genotoxic mode of action is predominant [8]. The application of several phthalates is regulated in the European Union and DEHP and several other phthalates are banned for the manufacturing of children's toys [9, 10]. In contrast, a restriction of DEHP use in medical devices does not exist. Nevertheless, the European Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly-Identified Health Risks recommended a substitution of DEHP for medical devices, whenever possible [11]

Studies in neonatology reported increased bilirubin levels in patients associated with DEHP exposure from nutrition lines [12]. Elevated bilirubin levels were also observed in patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment [13, 14]. Reasons for increasing bilirubin levels in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients can be, among others, ischemic, toxic, septic or due to hemolysis [15]. Elevated bilirubin can be a lead for early liver dysfunction which is known for increased morbidity and mortality [16]. Toxic reasons are mostly seen due to medication [17]. Only few studies dealt with the effects of DEHP exposure in ICU patients [18, 19, 20]. Thus, the purpose of this study was the assessment of DEHP and MEHP levels in blood and MEHP metabolites in urine of ECMO patients.

Materials and methods

Study design

For this explorative cross-sectional study, routinely collected data from patients were used who were hospitalised between May 2015 and December 2016 on a pneumology focused intensive care unit (ICU) of the Saarland University Medical Center, Germany. Additionally, blood and urine samples were collected once during ECMO treatment in order to determine the levels of DEHP and its metabolite. Urine samples were only taken of patients with intact urine excretion. In four patients, DEHP levels were additionally determined prior to the initiation of ECMO and also once during the course of treatment (seven days after the start of ECMO treatment) in order to perform a descriptive pre-post analysis. Verbal informed consent was obtained from participants or legal representatives; no minors were included in the study. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Medical Association of the Federal State of Saarland (Ärztekammer des Saarlandes). Data were shared and explored in accordance with patient consent.

Study population

The study collective included 17 patients receiving ECMO treatment, of which seven were female and ten were male. 13 patients died during ECMO treatment. The age of the patients ranged from 20 to 72 years (median 51 years).

The main cause for the initiation of ECMO therapy was the development of an acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Three patients were suffering from cystic fibrosis, five patients had lung fibrosis, three suffered from right heart decompensation due to pulmonary hypertension and one due to embolism. Two had ARDS because of pneumonia and one because of aspiration. The simplified acute physiology score (SAPS) as a measurement for severity of an illness had a mean of 39 points at the time of sample collection. The oxygenation index (pO2/FiO2) as an index of lung function on ventilator ranged from 54 to 154 (median 77) prior to ECMO treatment. ECMO therapy was started when the oxygenation deteriorated persistently with an oxygenation index below 100 or a blood pH value of less than 7.2 despite other procedures.

Run time of ECMO ranged from two to 65 days (median 31 days). The sample collection for the assessment of internal DEHP exposure took place after a median ECMO run time of 11 days (range 2 to 54 days). Priming of the ECMO circuit was done with physiological saline solution. The percutaneous cannulation was controlled by ultrasound, guided by a team of trained specialists in intensive care medicine. All study patients received high-flow ECMOs with a 7 L oxygenator (CardioHelp, Maquet, Rastatt, Germany). To prevent clotting, patients were treated with heparine (iv) or agatroban in case of a known or developing heparine-caused thrombocytopenia. Sedation was administered according to a protocol.

14 patients were cannulated veno-venous (vv), three veno-arterial (va). Standard vv cannulation was femoral drainage (23 F) and jugular return (19 F). Four patients had to be changed from vv to either vva with a venous drainage and one venous return and one arterial return or vvv with two draining cannulas. Five patients needed one change of membrane because of clotting, one needed four changes. In nine patients two cannulas were utilized, six patients who needed three cannulas in order to maximize the flow or because of clotting, one patient got in total four cannulas and one patient five.

In total, nine patients needed hemofiltration due to renal failure, of whom five had no urine excretion anymore. In one patient, a cytokine adsorber (CytoSorbents Corporation, New Jersey, USA) was used.

Blood products were administered according to guidelines and in case of severe bleeding. In brief, blood was transfused if Hb was below 7.0 g/dL or if central venous oxygenation was below 65% despite adequate cardiac output. The amount of given packed red blood cells ranged from two to 53 bags á 250 mL each (median 12 bags).

Additionally, a control group of five patients (two male, three female) was included. The age ranged from 49 to 74 years (median 59 years). The control group patients were also ICU patients who were on a ventilator for five to 17 days (median 11 days) until sample collection, but received no ECMO treatment. The SAPS score at the time of sample collection was 30 to 54 (median 41). One was a dialysis patient but still had urine excretion. One of the five control group patients died while on ventilation.

For details about the study population and its treatment see .

Analysis of blood and urine samples

The quantification of DEHP and MEHP in the blood samples was carried out according to a previously published procedure [2]. In brief, the analytes were extracted from the blood using liquid-liquid extraction, separated using liquid chromatography, and detected by tandem mass spectrometry. The limits of quantification (LOQ) were 5.0 μg/L for DEHP and 2.0 μg/L for the metabolite MEHP. An analysis of spiked quality control samples (QC) indicated a precision range of 4.4–5.3% and an accuracy (recovery) of 100–109% for both analytes.

The urine samples were processed according to a previously published procedure [21] that enables the determination of the primary metabolite MEHP and three secondary DEHP metabolites, namely mono-(2-ethyl-5-hydroxyhexyl) phthalate (5OH-MEHP), mono-(2-ethyl-5-oxohexyl) phthalate (5oxo-MEHP) and mono-(2-ethyl-5-carboxypentyl) phthalate (5cx-MEPP) in urine. Briefly, the urine samples were initially enzymatically hydrolyzed. The sample cleanup and enrichment of the analytes was accomplished by the application of an online cleanup procedure using a restricted access material. Subsequently, the analytes were chromatographically separated on an analytical column, and detected using tandem mass spectrometry. The limit of quantification was 0.5 μg/L for each analyte. An analysis of spiked quality control samples (QC) indicated a precision range of 7.3–11.0% and an accuracy (recovery) of 92–105% for all analytes. Moreover, the proficiency of the procedure was proved by the successful participation in the proficiency test program of the German External Quality Assessment Scheme (G-EQUAS; [22]).

Statistical analysis

The statistical analyses were performed using R software version 3.5.0 (R Core Team (2016): R: A language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Vienna Austria, URL: www.r-project.org). Continuous characteristics were described as median [Minimum; Maximum] and categorical characteristics as n (%). Comparison of two independent groups was performed using Mann-Whitney U test for continuous characteristics and Fisher’s exact test for binary characteristics. No statistical tests were performed to compare categorical characteristics with more than two categories because of the limited number of cases. Statistical significance was assumed for p-values of less than 0.05 using a two-sided significance level of α = 5%. There was no correction of p-values in this explorative analysis.

Results

The determined DEHP blood levels of the ECMO patients and the patients of the control group ranged from 31.5 to 1009 μg/L (median 156.0 μg/L) and from 19.4 to 75.3 μg/L (median 36.4 μg/L), respectively. MEHP blood levels were determined to range from < LOD to 475 μg/L (median 15.9 μg/L) in the ECMO patients and from < LOD to 9.9 μg/L (median 3.7 μg/L) in the control group patients, respectively ().

Blood levels of DEHP (a) and MEHP (b) in patients without ECMO therapy (control group) and with ECMO therapy (both p = 0.005).

In four patients, DEHP and MEHP blood levels were also determined prior to ECMO initiation and compared to the respective levels after an ECMO runtime of seven days. In each but one patient, this resulted in significantly elevated blood levels of DEHP and MEHP () with determined median levels of 40.7 μg DEHP/L and 9.5 μg MEHP/L prior to ECMO treatment compared to 74.4 μg DEHP/L and 18.3 μg MEHP/L after seven days of ECMO runtime. The decrease of MEHP after seven days of ECMO in one patient may be due to a limited metabolism but is not verified.

The association between duration of ECMO therapy and DEHP or MEHP was tested using Spearman’s correlation coefficient. However, the correlation did not reach statistical significance (r = 0.16, P = 0.53).

Blood levels of DEHP (a) and MEHP (b) in four patients prior to ECMO initiation and after seven days of ECMO therapy.

Median blood level of DEHP and MEHP in patients with only two cannulas was 156 μg/L and 9.5 μg/L. Median blood level of DEHP and MEHP in patients with more than two cannulas was 338 μg/L and 114.9 μg/L. Patients with only one membrane had a median DEHP level of 136 μg/L and MEHP of 17 μg/L. Patients that needed more than one membrane had a median DEHP of 535 μg/L and MEHP of 114.9 μg/L (Figs and ).

Blood levels of DEHP (a) and MEHP (b) in patients with two cannulas and in patients with more than two cannulas (p = 0.541 and p = 0.121, respectively).

Blood levels of DEHP (a) and MEHP (b) in patients with one membrane and in patients with more than one membrane (p = 0.492 and p = 0.702, respectively).

Correlation between DEHP and applied packed cells showed significance (spearman`s correlation coefficient r = 0.59, p<0.01).

Patients without urine output showed significantly increased DEHP and MEHP blood levels (median 823 μg/L and 214 μg/L) in comparison to the other patients (median 75.3 μg/L and 7.11 μg/L) ().

DEHP (a) and MEHP (b) in EDTA blood in patients with no residual diuresis and with residual diuresis (p = 0.019 and p = 0.009).

In one patient DEHP and MEHP blood levels were determined before (median DEHP 256 μg/L and MEHP 19 μg/L) and after dialysis (median DEHP 289 μg/L and MEHP 24 μg/L).

In the collected urine samples the main DEHP metabolites 5oxo-MEHP, 5OH-MEHP and 5cx-MEPP were determined. 5oxo-MEHP ranged from 2.82 μg/L to 2066.3 μg/L (median 522 μg/L), 5OH-MEHP 6.84 μg/L to 7402 μg/L (median 3359 μg/L) and 5cx-MEPP 12.95 to 24073 μg/L (median 5375 μg/L) ().

Discussion

In the present study, we found considerable amounts of the plasticizer di(2-ethylhexy)phthalate (DEHP) and its metabolite MEHP in ECMO patients. Runtime and amount of ECMO cannulas seemed to influence DEHP and MEHP levels.

ECMO is a special extracorporeal medical therapy that provides prolonged cardiac and respiratory support to patients. However, its application generally requires the extensive use of plasticized PVC components, bags and tubes with long lasting blood contact. Because of its characteristics, DEHP is often favored as an additive in blood bags and ECMO devices despite the fact that DEHP migrates very easily from PVC material into blood [4, 23, 24], which may result in a significant inner DEHP exposure of the patients. For healthy individuals, urinanalysis of DEHP metabolites is the established exposure monitoring strategy [21, 25]. ECMO patients, however often lack a residual diuresis which disadvantages the urinanalysis. Thus, for the monitoring of DEHP exposure, analysis in EDTA blood samples of the patients was carried out primarily.

There are already some studies dealing with the question of DEHP migration from PVC medical devices. These studies dealt with the influence of storage time of medical devices [7], of priming procedures [26] and of the applied coating [24, 27]. In the present study high values of DEHP and its metabolites are found to be correlated with longer and more intense ECMO (several cannulas, membranes), but not in all patients. We observed a trend of increased DEHP levels after initiation of ECMO therapy. Furthermore, we observed that DEHP and its metabolites were increased when a more intense ECMO treatment (as measured by number of cannulas or number of membranes) was applied. However, there was no positive correlation between duration of ECMO therapy and DEHP levels. This might be due to a rapid increase of DEHP after initiation of the therapy and a steady state during the rest of the treatment. Other factors like the individual metabolism might also have a strong impact on the DEHP-levels. More studies with a larger sample sizes and a more frequent measurement of DEHP-levels are needed in order to further analyse this question.

Accumulation of DEHP in dialysis patients and ICU patients is already known [28, 29]. To our knowledge there are only few studies that dealt with the patients DEHP exposure in relation to the PVC components, like nutrition lines, iv-lines, endotracheal tubes [1, 18] and none of these in reference to the amount of PVC components during ECMO treatment. Patients undergoing ECMO treatment are known to be prone to numerous complications, including those due to blood clotting or due to other material problems that necessitate an adjustment of the treatment, e.g. additional settings of cannulas or additional filters in the hemofiltration system [30, 31, 32].

We observed a trend towards lower blood levels of DEHP and MEHP in patients with only two cannulas than in patients with more cannulas. Furthermore, patients with only one membrane showed somewhat lower blood levels of DEHP and MEHP than patients that needed more than one membrane. However, probably due to the small sample size, the difference between both groups did not reach statistical significance (Figs ).

It is known that absorbed DEHP is rapidly metabolized in the body and excreted via urine [8, 25, 33]. It is evident, that ECMO patients with a present urine excretion have a better survival rate than patients without urine output [31, 34]. shows the determined blood levels of DEHP and MEHP in these patient groups of the here described study. It was observed, that patients without urine output showed significantly increased DEHP blood levels in comparison to the other patients. One possible explanation is the more extensive and longer use of medical devices in patients without active urine output. This is in line with the considerations of the working group of Huygh, who also considered the higher amount of inner DEHP exposure in ICU patients as a result of the increased use of medical devices [18]. The potentially more reasonable explanation for that observation is the inhibited elimination process in patients without regular urine excretion. Clearance of DEHP by dialysis is not described and because of its molecular nature also not to be expected [28, 29, 35]. In the present study, DEHP and MEHP blood levels were determined in one patient before and after dialysis but rather consistent levels were observed. In contrast, a considerable reduction of the DEHP and MEHP contamination in blood products was achieved in a recent study by cell saver treatment including a washing procedure [36]. However, this prevention strategy was not applied during the ECMO treatment of our patients.

We observed a statistically significant correlation between DEHP-levels and number of packed cells given. This could be due to the critical condition of patients who received a high number of packed cells. Those critical patients might also have received a more intense ECMO therapy. On the other hand, we did not measure the DEHP-levels in the blood products. Former studies indicated a high contamination of the blood products with DEHP, which may have contributed to the DEHP-blood levels in those patients [5, 36].

In this study, urine samples were only collected of six patients in the study group and none in the control group. In the study group not all patients had urine excretion and in the control group it was an organizational problem to gain urine samples.

In the collected urine samples the main DEHP metabolites 5oxo-MEHP, 5OH-MEHP and 5cx-MEPP were determined (). Considering the reference values with 20 μg/l for 5oxo-MEHP und 30 μg/l for 5OH-MEHP and 5cx-MEHP it is in evidence that 5 of 6 patients have values wide above the reference values determined by the biomonitoring commission [37]. The reason for patients 1 low values stays indistinct. The characteristics of this one patient was five days of ECMO run time with no change in system, only four bags of packed cells given prior to testing DEHP and its metabolites and bilirubin and lactate not elevated at that time.

The determined MEHP proportion in the blood samples varied considerably. In ECMO patients with residual diuresis MEHP proportion was in median 9.44% and in non-residual diuresis patients in median 26.5%. The results support the hypothesis that the inhibited renal clearance may affect the accumulation of DEHP and particularly of the hydrophilic DEHP metabolites in blood. It can also be assumed, that the patients medication may also affect metabolism of DEHP and this causes varying results of measured DEHP. Additionally excretion by sweat also seems to be an excretion pathway for phthalates [38]. The perspiration of intensive care patients differs strongly due to possible high fever and administered drugs and may also contribute to the observed differing results. DEHP and MEHP showed similar dependence, but the MEHP to DEHP ratio was not constant.

Potential adverse health effects of elevated DEHP exposure in patients are widely discussed [7, 18, 27, 35, 39]. Elevated bilirubin levels point to liver dysfunction, which is associated with higher morbidity and mortality [16]. A study on a neonatal ICU observed elevated bilirubin levels in several patients and DEHP exposure due to the used nutrition lines was discussed as a probable cause. Following an equipment replacement to DEHP-free nutrition lines, a significant decrease in bilirubin levels was observed [12]. Other studies also observed elevated bilirubin levels in ECMO patients but did not consider a probable DEHP exposure [34, 40]. Pappalardo even used this parameter in risk scores [41].

In this study, bilirubin levels were determined at the time of sample collection for the assessment of inner DEHP exposure. Generally, ECMO patients exhibited higher bilirubin levels with a median of 1.3 mg/dl (range 0.2–19.4 mg/dL) in comparison to the control group with a median of 0.4 mg/dL (range 0.3–1.0 mg/dL). Further differences were observed for the lactate levels in blood with a median of 1.0 mmol/l (range 0.4–16) and 1.4 mmol/l (range 1.0–2.4) for the study group and the control group, respectively.

There are several limitations to this study. The series is small so that statistical tests have to be read with caution. Also, collection of material for assessment did not follow a strict protocol. On the other hand, the study provides valid information regarding the exposure of patients with plasticizers. A strength of the study is the simultaneous quantification of the internal exposure of DEHP and its primary metabolite MEHP in the patients and the joint survey of chemical exposure and clinical parameters.

Conclusions

The results of the study clearly demonstrate that ECMO patients received a considerable high internal exposure to DEHP, which is the still most prominent plasticizer in medical devices up to date. Moreover, the results indicate that the high DEHP exposure may contribute to the elevated blood levels of bilirubin in the patients. Due to the suspected toxicological potential of DEHP, its effects in patients and use in medical devices should be further evaluated, in particular for ICU patients with long-term medical treatments like ECMO therapy.

Dataset_ECMO_DEHP.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.

25 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-22817

Internal exposure to di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) and its metabolite MEHP during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy

PLOS ONE

Dear Prof. Dr. med. Lepper,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 09 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jaymie Meliker, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

I have read the journals policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: FK received travelling fees from Getinge Deutschland GmbH; PL received travelling fees from Getinge Deutschland GmbH, and speaker fees from Mitsubishi Pharma, and CSL Behring. The other authors declared no conflict of interest.

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Interesting paper on exposure to DEHP during ECMO and other intense Medical treatment.

Specific comments:

1. Title: the term Internal exposure is strange, why not Intravenous exposure, as this is what you are measuring. Or simply Exposure.

2. I miss in the article any reference to the ongoing regulatory developments, with more stringent requirements for the use of DEHP, or plasticizers in general. This must be added.

3. Page 6, line 166: not sure if accuracy is the right word here, do you mean recovery?

4. Results, page 8: lots of data points for DEHP and MEHP are shown, but several questions remain: was there a correlation between days on ECMO and the levels determined. Was there a correlation between number of red cell transfusions and exposure. In figure 2 and 3: probably there are patients with more than two cannulas and more than one membrane; worthwhile to give this information. Are these patients also having more transfusions and other Medical treatment with PVC components?

5. In table 2 it would be of value to have also the DEHP and MEHP values in the blood added.

6. Discussion, page 10, line 269: maybe better to formulate differently, high values are found to be correlated with longer and more intense ECMO (several canulas, membranes), but not in all patients.

7. Discussion, page 11 line 294 ctd. and page 12 line 317 ctd. seems to be in contrast. Line 294 is 'could be' and in line 317 it is a hypothesis. In my opinion the main reason for higher DEHP in patients without urine output is inhibited elimination, and perhaps more intense treatment plays an additional role, according to the hypothesis.

8. Discussion, page 11, line 300: please add that cell saver treatment includes a washing step.

9. Discussion, page 11, line 314 ctc: according to the individual points in the graphs, it looks like low DEHP is also low MEHP, can you add a remark on this point to the discussion in the part where you discuss MEHP proportion.

10. Introduction: although it is true that DEHP is (re)classified as carcinogenic, it has to be clear that the values needed for this effect are far above those for the endocrine disruptive effects.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

22 Oct 2019

Reviewer #1: Interesting paper on exposure to DEHP during ECMO and other intense Medical treatment.

We thank the reviewer for his critical appraisal of our paper. We would like to answer the raised issues as follows:

Specific comments:

1. Title: the term Internal exposure is strange, why not Intravenous exposure, as this is what you are measuring. Or simply Exposure.

We fully agree with the reviewer and hence change the title to simply „Exposure of…“

2. I miss in the article any reference to the ongoing regulatory developments, with more stringent requirements for the use of DEHP, or plasticizers in general. This must be added.

We agree and add the following paragraph in the manuscript in line 77-82: Additionally, DEHP in much higher values is classified as a carcinogen for which a non-genotoxic mode of action is predominant (8). The application of several phthalates is regulated in the European Union and DEHP and several other phthalates are banned for the manufacturing of children's toys (9, 10). In contrast, a restriction of DEHP use in medical devices does not exist. Nevertheless, the European Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly-Identified Health Risks recommended a substitution of DEHP for medical devices, whenever possible (11)

3. Page 6, line 166: not sure if accuracy is the right word here, do you mean recovery?

As we fell, the reviewers suggestion gives more precision, we now write e.g. an accuracy (recovery) of 100–109 % for both analytes.

4. Results, page 8: lots of data points for DEHP and MEHP are shown, but several questions remain: was there a correlation between days on ECMO and the levels determined. Was there a correlation between number of red cell transfusions and exposure. In figure 2 and 3: probably there are patients with more than two cannulas and more than one membrane; worthwhile to give this information. Are these patients also having more transfusions and other Medical treatment with PVC components?

We agree with the reviewer and changed the manuscript in multiple aspects:

Line 221 – 223: The decrease of MEHP after seven days of ECMO in one patient may be due to a limited metabolism but is not verified. The association between duration of ECMO therapy and DEHP or MEHP was tested using Spearman’s correlation coefficient. However, the correlation did not reach statistical significance (r = 0.16, P = 0.53).

Line 279 -290: In the present study high values of DEHP and its metabolites are found to be correlated with longer and more intense ECMO (several cannulas, membranes), but not in all patients. We observed a trend of increased DEHP levels after initiation of ECMO therapy. Furthermore, we observed that DEHP and its metabolites were increased when a more intense ECMO treatment (as measured by number of cannulas or number of membranes) was applied. However, there was no positive correlation between duration of ECMO therapy and DEHP levels. This might be due to a rapid increase of DEHP after initiation of the therapy and a steady state during the rest of the treatment. Other factors like the individual metabolism might also have a strong impact on the DEHP-levels. More studies with a larger sample sizes and a more frequent measurement of DEHP-levels are needed in order to further analyse this question.

Line 240 – 242: Correlation between DEHP and applied packed cells showed significance (spearman`s correlation coefficient r = 0.59, p<0.01).

And finally line 326 – 332: We observed a statistically significant correlation between DEHP-levels and number of packed cells given. This could be due to the critical condition of patients who received a high number of packed cells. Those critical patients might also have received a more intense ECMO therapy. On the other hand, we did not measure the DEHP-levels in the blood products. Former studies indicated a high contamination of the blood products with DEHP, which may have contributed to the DEHP-blood levels in those patients (5, 36).

5. In table 2 it would be of value to have also the DEHP and MEHP values in the blood added.

We agree and add these values.

6. Discussion, page 10, line 269: maybe better to formulate differently, high values are found to be correlated with longer and more intense ECMO (several canulas, membranes), but not in all patients.

We changed this according to the reviewers suggestion (line 279 ff).

7. Discussion, page 11 line 294 ctd. and page 12 line 317 ctd. seems to be in contrast. Line 294 is 'could be' and in line 317 it is a hypothesis. In my opinion the main reason for higher DEHP in patients without urine output is inhibited elimination, and perhaps more intense treatment plays an additional role, according to the hypothesis.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and we change the manuscript accordingly.

8. Discussion, page 11, line 300: please add that cell saver treatment includes a washing step.

Done.

9. Discussion, page 11, line 314 ctc: according to the individual points in the graphs, it looks like low DEHP is also low MEHP, can you add a remark on this point to the discussion in the part where you discuss MEHP proportion.

We agree with the reviewer and add in line 353 ff.: „DEHP and MEHP showed similar dependence, but the MEHP to DEHP ratio was not constant.“

10. Introduction: although it is true that DEHP is (re)classified as carcinogenic, it has to be clear that the values needed for this effect are far above those for the endocrine disruptive effects.

The reviewer is right in saying much higher levels are needed for carcinogenic effects, we thus state in line 77: „Additionally, DEHP in much higher values is classified as a carcinogen for which a non-genotoxic mode of action is predominant.“

Submitted filename: DEHP Revision point-by-point reply 16-10-19.doc

Click here for additional data file.

25 Oct 2019

Exposure of patients to di(2-ethylhexy)phthalate (DEHP) and its metabolite MEHP during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy

PONE-D-19-22817R1

Dear Dr. Lepper,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Jaymie Meliker, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

23 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-22817R1

Exposure of patients to di(2-ethylhexy)phthalate (DEHP) and its metabolite MEHP during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy

Dear Dr. Lepper:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Jaymie Meliker

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 1

Study group and control group description.

*: at time of DEHP measurement (ECMO = extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, SAPS = simplified acute physiology score, DEHP = di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, MEHP = mono(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, PC = packed cells, CF = cystic fibrosis, ILD = interstitial lung disease, PH = pulmonary hypertension, PE = pulmonary embolism, ARDS = acute respiratory distress syndrome, CLAD = chronic lung allograft dysfunction, AECOPD = acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease).

	No ECMO(n = 5)	ECMO(n = 17)	P value
Age (years)	59.0 (49.0;74.0)	51.0 (20.0;72.0)	0.055
Time on respirator (days)	11.0 (5.00;17.0)	. (.;.)	.
Time on ECMO (days)	. (.;.)	31.0 (2.00;65.0)	.
Horowitz index	. (.;.)	77.0 (55.0;154)	.
SAPS score	41.0 (30.0;54.0)	39.0 (13.0;72.0)	0.666
Time to DEHP monitoring (days)	10.0 (5.00;13.0)	11.0 (2.00;54.0)	0.408
Bilirubin * (mg/dL)	0.40 (0.30;1.00)	1.30 (0.20;19.4)	0.091
Bilirubin max (mg/dL)	0.60 (0.40;2.20)	4.60 (0.20;24.0)	0.055
Lactat * (mmol/L)	1.40 (1.00;2.40)	1.00 (0.40;16.0)	0.382
ECMO flow * (L/min)	. (.;.)	3.55 (1.00;5.20)	.
ECMO flow max (L/min)	. (.;.)	5.00 (4.00;7.00)	.
DEHP (μg/L)	36.4 (19.4;75.3)	156 (31.5;1009)	0.007
MEHP (μg/L)	3.67 (0.00;9.94)	15.9 (0.00;475)	0.075
PC before DEHP (units)	2.00 (0.00;14.0)	12.0 (2.00;53.0)	0.030
DEHP Equivalent (nmol/L)	110 (75.2;193)	496 (80.6;3601)	0.007
MEHP share (%)	9.30 (0.00;34.0)	19.6 (0.00;54.1)	0.782
Diagnosis:			0.187
CF	0 (0.00%)	3 (17.6%)
ILD	0 (0.00%)	5 (29.4%)
Right heart decompensationPH	0 (0.00%)	3 (17.6%)
Right heart decompensation PE	0 (0.00%)	1 (5.88%)
ARDS pneumonia	3 (60.0%)	2 (11.8%)
ARDS aspiration	1 (20.0%)	1 (5.88%)
Others (CLAD, AECOPD)	1 (20.0%)	2 (11.8%)
Death:			0.039
0	4 (80.0%)	4 (23.5%)
1	1 (20.0%)	13 (76.5%)
Membranes:			.
1	0 (.%)	10 (62.5%)
2	0 (.%)	5 (31.2%)
5	0 (.%)	1 (6.25%)
Cannulas:			.
2	0 (.%)	9 (52.9%)
3	0 (.%)	6 (35.3%)
4	0 (.%)	1 (5.88%)
5	0 (.%)	1 (5.88%)
Hemofiltration:			0.323
0	4 (80.0%)	8 (47.1%)
1	1 (20.0%)	9 (52.9%)
Urine output:			0.290
0	0 (0.00%)	5 (29.4%)
1	5 (100%)	12 (70.6%)

Table 2

DEHP metabolites in urine samples and DEHP and MEHP in EDTA blood of six patients.

5-OH-MEHP = mono(2-ethyl-5-hydroxyhexyl)phthalate; 5-oxo-MEHP = mono(2-ethyl-5-oxo-hexyl)-phthalate; 5-cx-MEPP = mono(2-ethyl-5-carboxypentyl)phthalate.

Patient	5OH-MEHP (μg/l)Urine	5oxo-MEHP (μg/l)Urine	5cx-MEPP (μg/l)Urine	DEHP (μg/l)EDTA-Blood	MEHP (μg/l)EDTA-Blood
1	6.84	2.82	13.0	117	3
2	6020	1720	10800	459	81
3	697	221	36.1	256	19
4	7400	2070	24100	565	475
5	6680	618	9650	156	27
6	405	425	1100	80	15