Author's response to reviews Title: Prenatal Micronutrient Supplementation and Postpartum Depressive Symptoms in a Pregnancy Cohort Authors:

Discretionary Revisions 1) Methods: Consider including sample size used for current analysis in the abstract. RESPONSE: As stated in the text: “475 participants.... completed the EPDS at least twice in pregnancy and at 12 weeks postpartum, 416 (88%) scored <10 and 59 (12%) scored >10”. 2) Results: 1st sentence: Consider incorporating what being < 10 and > = 10 on the EPDS represents into the sentence. Some readers may not be familiar with the EPDS and it’s typical cut-offs (e.g. what might represent “low” or “high” depressive symptoms). – RESPONSE: Thank you, this change will enhance clarity. We have revised it as suggested. 3) 2nd sentence: Consider defining “most” (e.g. x/x examined) and adding word “mean” before intakes. RESPONSE: Revised as suggested. 4) 2nd and 3rd sentence: For clarity, consider stating that these associations are based on bivariate analyses. RESPONSE: Revised as suggested. INTRODUCTION Discretionary Revisions 5) 1st paragraph, line 8-10: Consider replacing “mental (and physical)” with “health and development” and adding reference to at least one health effect. RESPONSE: Revised as suggested; references were given in the next sentence. 6) 3rd paragraph, line 4: Consider replacing word “pregnancy” with “the offspring”. RESPONSE: Revised as suggested. Minor Essential Revisions 7) Consider adding your initial hypothesis (hypotheses) to end of the introduction. RESPONSE: Although the suggestion is consistent with some practices, in this particular manuscript we feel this is unnecessary as the purpose states clearly the intention of this study.