Polymer Deformulation of a Medical Device case study
1. www.jordilabs.com Page 1
CASE STUDY
Polymer Deformulation of a Medical Device
STUDY
The objective of this work was to investigate the chemistry of a polymeric urinary drainage bag. The goal was
to deformulate the device.
ANALYTICAL STRATEGY
In an effort to obtain a complete understanding of the device composition, many analytical techniques were
employed, including:
• Pyrolysis Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (PYMS)
• Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (NMR)
• Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR)
• Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (LCMS)
• Gel Permeation Chromatography (GPC)
• Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA)
• Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS)
CONCLUSIONS
The sample was separated into two separate portions, one section of the sample was found to have a white
surface layer. The chemistry of the sample is summarized in Table 1.
Read the following report to see the full analysis.
`
3. October 3, 2014
Client Name Phone
Company Name Email
Dear Valued Client,
Please find enclosed the test results for your sample described as:
1 - Urinary drainage bag
The following tests were performed:
1. Pyrolysis Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (PYMS)
2. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (NMR)
3. Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR)
4. Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (LCMS)
5. Gel Permeation Chromatography (GPC)
6. Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA)
7. Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS)
Objective
The objective of this work is to investigate the chemistry of a polymeric urinary drainage bag.
The goal of this work was to deformulate the device.
Summary of Results
The sample was separated into two separate portions, one section of the sample was found to
have a white surface layer. The chemistry of the sample is summarized in Table 1. As shown,
both portions of the sample are consistent with polyvinylchloride (PVC) plasticized with
dioctylterephthalate and epoxidized soybean oil. Common flame retardants, triphenyl phosphate
and octyl diphenyl phosphate were also detected in both samples. The white portion of the
sample was found to contain significant concentrations of titanium (Ti) and calcium (Ca). It is
most likely that these elements are present as TiO2 and CaCO3. These compounds are often used
together in white pigments.
Page 2 of 214
4. Table 1
Summary of Sample Chemistry
Component Structure CAS Purpose Comments
Polyvinylchloride (PVC) 9002-86-2 Polymer
Mn - 93,104
Mw - 180,391
Mz - 310,453
Dioctylterephthalate 6422-86-2 Plasticizer *
Epoxidized Soybean Oil
Where R is:
(epoxidized linoleate)
or
(epoxidized oleate)
or
(epoxidized linolenate)
or
(stearate)
or
(palmitate)
8013-07-8 Plasticizer *
Triphenyl Phosphate 115-86-6
Flame
retardant
*
Octyl Diphenyl Phosphate 1241-94-7
Flame
retardant
*
Ti (likely as TiO2
Present in white portion
only
-- 13463-67-7 Pigment
1.4% w/w (as
TiO2)
Ca (likely as
and CaCO3)
Present in white portion
only
-- 471-34-1 Pigment
2.7% w/w (as
CaCO3)
* Formal Quantification required for accurate determination of concentration present.
Page 3 of 214
5. Individual Test Results
A summary of the individual test results is provided below. All accompanying data, including
spectra, has been included in the data section of this report.
Sample Preparation
The sample provided was found to contain two distinct layers. One side of the bag is found to be
relatively clear (clear portion), while the opposite side of the bag was found to be opaque white.
For the purposes of deformulation of the sample, these layers were analyzed separately. Figure
2 includes an optical micrograph collected from a portion of the sample showing the two layers
present.
Figure 1 - Urinary drainage bag sample analyzed.
Page 4 of 214
6. Figure 2 – Optical micrograph collected from the sample. A portion of the bottom layer (white
portion) has been removed to reveal the presence of both layers.
FTIR
The sample was analyzed directly by FTIR in attenuated total reflectance (ATR) mode. The
white and clear portions of the sample were analyzed separately; however the spectra collected
are nearly identical. A search of our mass spectral database produces Kodaflex DOTP, a
commercial dioctylterephthalate plasticizer as the best match.
Clear
Portion
White Portion
Page 5 of 214
7. Table 2
FTIR Peaks and Identifications
IR Frequency (cm-1
) Functional Group
2964, 2934, 2859 CH stretch
1718 C=O stretch (plasticizer)
1427 CH2 deformation
1269 CH bend
1119, 1103, 1018 C-O-C
867 C-Cl stretching
729 CH2 rocking
Figure 3 – Overlay of FTIR spectra collected from the sample.
PYMS
Analysis by PY-GCMS was conducted using a double shot technique. The double shot
experiment consists of heating a sample to release volatiles which were then cryogenically
trapped and then analyzed by GCMS. Following completion of the 1st
pass analysis, the
remaining portion of the sample was then heated above the decomposition temperature rapidly
and pyrolyzed components were passed into a gas chromatography column and analyzed by
mass spectroscopy.
Prominent peaks found in PY-GCMS typically include fragments of the polymer as well as
monomer, antioxidants and other additives. Sample peaks were compared with over 796,613
reference compounds using the NIST/EPA/NIH mass spectral search program.
Page 6 of 214
8. Results
The PYMS data collected from both portions of the device is consistent with PVC. When
pyrolyzed this polymer first de-chlorinates, which is characterized by a large signal consistent
with HCl. Following de-chlorination, the polymer backbone begins to degrade resulting in the
formation of benzene as well as a variety of alkanes.
Flexible PVC formulations contain a significant concentration of a plasticizer. Both portions of
the sample are found to contain significant signal consistent with bis(2-ethylhexyl)terephthalate.
Figure 4 – Overlay of PYMS 1st
pass chromatograms.
Page 7 of 214
9. Figure 5 – Overlay of PYMS 2nd
pass chromatograms.
The clear portion of the sample was also analyzed using a specialized method designed for
identification of small molecule polymer additives. Figure 6 includes the chromatogram
collected. The major component observed is consistent with bis(2-ethylhexyl)terephthalate. A
number of minor components are consistent with fatty acids and related compounds. This is
consistent with the LCMS data collected, in which compounds consistent with the presence of
epoxidized soybean oil were observed.
Page 8 of 214
10. Figure 6 – PYMS additives mode chromatogram collected.
1
H NMR
Both portions of the sample were dissolved separately in DMSO-d6, with gentle heating. The
white portion was found to have an insoluble fraction. The NMR data collected is consistent
with PVC plasticized with bis(2-ethylhexyl)terephthalate. Both portions show nearly identical
spectra. Table 3 includes a summary of the peaks observed and their identification. The peaks
due to PVC are broad due to tacticity effects.
Table 3
1
H NMR Results
Identification
Chemical
Shift (ppm)
A1 4.3-4.7
A2 2.0-2.6
α1 8.1
ß1 4.2
Solvent 2.5
ß2 1.7
ß5, ß4, δ1 1.2-1.5
ß6, δ2 0.8-0.9
Page 9 of 214
11. LCMS
Background: QTOF-LCMS combines high mass accuracy time of flight mass spectroscopy with
the power of a liquid chromatography separation to provide detailed information about the
elemental composition of unknowns.
The presence of an additional quadrupole mass spectrometer (Q) provides the added capability to
perform fragmentation experiments. This increases the confidence of unknown identification. It
is preferable that a standard of the suspected unknown be analyzed under identical conditions as
the sample. If the fragmentation patterns, high accuracy mass data, isotope patterns and LC
retention times match for the unknown and standard then there is a very high probability that the
identification is correct. It is possible to gain significant information about the structure of an
unknown, even in cases in which standards are not available by using the molecular formula
generation (MFG) algorithms contained in the Mass Hunter qualitative software.
LCMS requires that the molecule of interest be ionized. Thus, data is typically plotted in positive
and negative modes indicating the charge on the ions. Ion formation is accomplished through the
formation of a molecular adduct using a charge carrying species. Typical charge carriers in
positive ion mode include H+
, Na+
, K+
, NH4+ etc. Thus the observed mass is typically the mass
of the compound plus the mass of the charge carrier.
The nature of the mobile phase and the ionization conditions determine the ions formed. In
negative ion, the loss of hydrogen is generally observed which results in the loss of one mass unit
(1.0078 amu). Other transformations are also possible including dehydration, dimer formation,
etc.
A number of plots are used to aid in interpreting QTOF-LCMS data. This includes Base Peak
Chromatograms (BPC), Extracted Ion Chromatograms (EIC), Extracted Compound
Chromatogram (ECC), Mass spectra (MS) and Product Ion Spectra (MSMS). A BPC is formed
by plotting the most intense ion at a given retention time. This spectrum is particularly useful for
identifying the retention time of unknowns. EICs are formed by plotting a single mass at all
retention times. This could be considered a plot of peak intensity (~compound concentration) for
a single compound (and its isomers) versus retention time. ECC’s are the sum of all the ions
determined to be related to a single compound.
MS spectra plot the observed masses and their intensities at a single retention time. MS/MS
spectra show the fragmentation pattern for a single compound. Mass Spectra plot the mass to
charge ratio (m/z) and not the mass of the compound.
All structures indicated represent best estimates based on the data observed. In most cases the
MS/MS fragmentation spectra have been consulted briefly to aid in identification of possible
structures.
Page 10 of 214
12. Results
Analytical solutions were prepared by extracting a known amount of sample in a suitable
extraction solvent.
Both portions of the extract showed nearly identical chromatograms. The majority of
components observed in both are consistent with a variety of epoxidized fatty acid triglycerides.
The most abundant of which is identified as epoxidized glyceryl trilinoleate. These compounds
are consistent with the presence of epoxidized soybean oil, a plasticizer commonly used in PVC
formulations. While the major component in epoxidized soybean oil is epoxidized glyceryl
trilinoleate, epoxidized soybean oil is from natural sources and is expected to show a variety of
different epoxidized triglycerides. The plasticizer dioctylterephthalate is also observed in both
sample extracts.
Also detected at relatively high abundance are a series of organophosphates, including
triphenylphosphate and octyl diphenylphosphate (Trade Name: Santicizer 141). These
compounds are likely to be present as flame retardants.
Table 4
Summary of LCMS Results
RT
Positive
m/z
Negative
m/z
Mass Best Match Score Diff. Possible ID
10.217 267.1602 266.1529 C15 H22 O4 94.87 -3.97
10.483 327.0787 326.0716 C18 H15 O4 P 96.96 -2.42 Triphenyl Phosphate
11.08 531.331 530.3239 C24 H51 O10 P 97.56 -0.54
Tris(2-(2-
butoxyethoxy)ethyl)
phosphate
11.213 344.2802 326.2464 C19 H34 O4 98.37 -2.08
Epoxidized Methyl
Linoleate
11.677 363.1725 362.1653 C20 H27 O4 P 97.63 -1.78
Octyl Diphenyl
Phosphate
(Santicizer - 141)
11.997 698.5232 725.4866 680.4879 C39 H68 O9 93.49 -2.28
Epoxidized Glyceryl
Dilinoleate
12.142 613.4734 612.4663 C39 H65 O3 P 94.71 1.33
12.263 279.2335 280.2407 C18 H32 O2 97.15 -1.8 Linoleic acid
12.408 1006.7148 988.6808 C57 H96 O13 85.29 4.3
Epoxidized Glyceryl
Dilinoleate Linolenate
12.462 281.2501 282.2573 C18 H34 O2 91.35 -5.14 Oleic acid
12.54 391.2869 390.2795 C24 H38 O4 83.92 -6.28 Dioctylterepthalate
12.728 992.7457 1019.7072 974.7088 C57 H98 O12 93.21 -3.01
Epoxidized Glyceryl
Trilinoleate
12.794 669.4973 624.4989 C37 H68 O7 91.57 -3.77
Epoxidized Glycerol
Linolein Palmitin
12.872 391.2961 390.289 C21 H43 O4 P 93.71 2.24
12.927 978.765 1005.7275 960.7291 C57 H100 O11 94.53 -2.67
Epoxidized Glyceryl
Dilinoleate Oleate
13.192 936.7536 963.7155 918.7172 C55 H98 O10 98.03 -1.29
Epoxidized Glyceryl
Dilinoleate Palmitate
13.325 964.7879 991.7475 946.7489 C57 H102 O10 96.51 -1.69
Epoxidized Glyceryl
Dioleate Linoleate
Page 11 of 214
14. Figure 8 – Overlay of LCMS base peak chromatograms, negative ionization.
TGA
The sample was subjected to TGA analysis over the temperature range from ambient to 1000ºC.
The sample was analyzed under nitrogen. The samples show the same general behavior. Two
distinct weight losses are observed. The white portion of the sample shows more material
remaining after heating to 1000°C. This suggests the presence of an inorganic component, likely
a pigment, present in this portion of the sample. Analysis of this sample by ICP-MS suggests
that the pigment used is TiO2/CaCO3 (sometimes referred to as calcium-titanium white), a
common white pigment. The residue remaining in the clear sample most likely represents
carbonaceous, non-volatile residues. Formation of this material is common in PVC samples.
Table 5
TGA Weight Loss
Sample
Portion
Run
Weight Loss
Max. (°C)
Weight Loss
%
Total Weight Loss
(%)
Residue (%)
Clear
1
302.70 72.23
92.05 7.95
466.51 19.82
2
305.93 72.16
91.67 8.33
466.51 19.51
White
1
304.31 67.06
86.19 13.81
466.51 19.13
2
303.51 67.32
86.36 13.64
466.51 19.04
Page 13 of 214
15. ICP-MS
The two portions of the sample were analyzed by ICP-MS in order to investigate their elemental
compositions. Table 6 includes a summary of the elements detected. The samples show similar
levels of most elements detected, with the exception of titanium and calcium. As mentioned
previously it is suspected that a white pigment based on titanium dioxide and calcium carbonate
is present. Based on the assumption that the only source of titanium and calcium is titanium
dioxide and calcium carbonate, the total TiO2 and CaCO3 content can be calculated as follows:
%𝑇𝑖𝑂2 = 0.86% ×
𝑀𝑊 𝑇𝑖𝑂2
𝑀𝑊 𝑇𝑖
= 1.4%
%𝐶𝑎𝐶𝑂3 = 1.1% ×
𝑀𝑊 𝐶𝑎𝐶𝑂3
𝑀𝑊 𝐶𝑎
= 2.7%
Table 6
Summary of ICP-MS Results
Element
Clear Portion White Portion
Conc.
(ppm, w/w)
Conc.
(ppm, w/w)
Na 33 60
Mg 300 290
Al 160 34
Si 24 140
P 190 270
K 2 55
Ca 45 1.1%
Sc < 1 3
Ti 4 8600
V < 1 3
Fe < 10 12
Cu < 1 6
Zn 210 220
Nb < 1 21
Sn <1 3
Ba 730 980
GPC
GPC Background: A polymer is a large molecule which is formed using a repeating subunit. A
polymeric sample does not have a single molecular weight but rather a range of values and thus
an average value is used to indicate its molecular weight.
Three different molecular weight averages are commonly used to provide information about
polymers. These are the number average molecular weight (Mn), the weight average molecular
weight (Mw), and the Z average molecular weight (Mz).
Page 14 of 214
16. Mn provides information about the lowest molecular weight portion of the sample. Mw is the
average closest to the center of the peak and Mz represents the highest molecular weight portion
of the sample. The different molecular weight averages can each be related to specific polymer
properties such as material toughness, tensile strength, and total elongation.
By comparing the different averages, it is possible to define a fourth parameter called the
polydispersity index (PDI). This parameter gives an indication of how broad a range of
molecular weights are in the sample.
Results: Analysis by GPC requires that a suitable solvent be found to dissolve the sample.
Samples were found to dissolve in Tetrahydrofuran (THF). Three peaks were observed and each
peak is integrated individually as well as a full integration. Enclosed are refractive index
chromatograms for each sample, as well as cumulative weight fraction curves, molecular weight
distribution curves and summary reports. A second individual summary report is included to
show the reproducibility of the data. A calibration curve and chromatographic overlay of the
standards are included. Also please find an overlay of the samples with standards.
The average molecular weights are summarized in Tables 7 - 10. The data collected was
integrated in two different ways, first including all of the observed chromatographic peaks and
second including each of the observed peaks separately. Based on the mass spectral and NMR
data collected, it appears that the samples contain a significant portion of both
dioctylterephthalate (DOTP) and epoxidized soybean oil as plasticizers in the main polymer.
Figure 9 - Overlay of GPC chromatograms collected.
Page 15 of 214
18. The peak area observed in GPC analysis can be used as a rough estimate of the relative amount
of the three major organic components present in the samples. It should be noted that this
calculation does not include the inorganics pigments, which represent a significant portion of the
white portion of the sample.
Table 11
GPC Results
Sample
PVC
Epoxidized Soybean
Oil
DOTP Estimated Relative Conc.
Peak
Area
Avg. Peak Area Avg.
Peak
Area
Avg. PVC EPSO DOTP
Clear
Portion
25859
25882.5
923
934
9780
9792 70.7% 2.6% 26.7%
25906 945 9804
White
Portion
24085
24071
746
771.5
9229
9250 70.6% 2.3% 27.1%
24057 797 9271
Page 17 of 214
19. Analysis Conditions
This section of a Jordi report provides information on the methods used including instrument
type, temperatures, solvents, sample preparation, etc. The specific conditions have been removed
for this case study.
Closing Comments
Deformulation of an unknown material is intended to provide a best estimate of the chemical
nature of the sample. All chemical structures are supported by the evidence presented but are
subject to revision upon receipt of additional evidence. Additional factors such as material
processing conditions may also affect final material properties.
Jordi Labs’ reports are issued solely for the use of the clients to whom they are addressed. No
quotations from reports or use of the Jordi name is permitted except as authorized in writing. The
liability of Jordi Labs with respect to the services rendered shall be limited to the amount of
consideration paid for such services and do not include any consequential damages.
Jordi Labs specializes in polymer testing and has 30 years experience doing complete polymer
deformulations. We are one of the few labs in the country specialized in this type of testing. We
will work closely with you to help explain your test results and solve your problem. We
appreciate your business and are looking forward to speaking with you concerning these results.
Sincerely,
Kevin Rowland
Senior Chemist
Kevin Rowland, M.S
Jordi Labs LLC
Mark Jordi
President
Mark Jordi, Ph. D.
Jordi Labs LLC
Page 18 of 214
20. Appendix
Pages 20 - 26 - FTIR Data
Pages 27 - 71 - GPC Data
Pages 72 - 102 - LCMS Data
Pages 103 - 112 - NMR Data
Pages 113 - 209 - PYMS Data
Pages 210 - 214 - TGA Data
Page 19 of 214
26. Index HQI Spectrum Chemical Name Active Ingredi... Synonyms
OL ... 653... CELANEX 3210*A THERMOPLASTIC POLYE...
HU ... 565... BLOCK COPOLYMER WITH POLY(OXYMET...
OM ... 562... EKTAR FB CG004
OM ... 547... EKTAR FB CG007
AS ... 547... BOSTIK 5740 POLYESTER
OM ... 543... EKTAR FB CG907
OM ... 542... THERMOCOMP WC-1006
OM ... 540... KODEL TYPE II
OM ... 535... EKTAR PCTG 5445
RC ... 534... KODAFLEX DOTP
HU ... 529... COPOLYESTER FROM 1,3-DI(2'-HYDROXYE...
OL ... 524... KODAR COPOLYESTER A 150*1,4-CYCLOH...
OM ... 512... ARAKOTE 3006
PL #... 508... KODAFLEX DOTP
OM ... 505... ULTRADUR B 4520
OM ... 503... ARNITE TO8 200
OL ... 502... VERSEL 1100 PBT*AN UNREINFORCED TH...
AS ... 502... THERMOGRIP 1128
OM ... 500... ULTRADUR B 4300 G6
OM ... 498... WELLITE 9000GP
OM ... 496... CELANEX 3400
AS ... 496... THERMOGRIP 1165
OM ... 493... ULTRADUR B 2550
OM ... 490... CELANEX 4300
HU ... 489... KODAR A 150
Page 25 of 214
35. Cumulative Wf Distribution CurveFile Name =
UDBC3-2
2.42 3.20 3.97 4.75 5.52 6.29
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
CumulativeWf
log(Molecular Weight)
Page 34 of 214
36. Summary of Molecular Weights
File Name = UDBC3-2
Sample Name = J8678 UDB Clear
Calibration File Name = JordiCalibr061814.ASC
Number Average Molecular Weight (Mn) = 1591 Integration Limits =
Weight Average Molecular Weight (Mw) = 127132 Left = 13.77
Z Average Molecular Weight (Mz) = 308711 Right = 25.02
Peak Maximum Molecular Weight (Mp) = 450
Polydispersity = 79.92
Peak Area = 36560
Mobile Phase = THF Temperature = 45 º C
Detector = Refractive Index Inj. Volume = 50 µl
Concentration = 2.5 mg/ml Flow Rate = 1.2 ml/min
Run Date = 6/17/2014 10:28:47 PM
Column = Jordi Gel DVB 2 x Mixed Bed, 250 x 10 mm
Comments = None
Page 35 of 214
37. Summary of Molecular Weights
File Name = UDBC3-3
Sample Name = J8678 UDB Clear
Calibration File Name = JordiCalibr061814.ASC
Number Average Molecular Weight (Mn) = 1595 Integration Limits =
Weight Average Molecular Weight (Mw) = 127665 Left = 13.77
Z Average Molecular Weight (Mz) = 309561 Right = 25.02
Peak Maximum Molecular Weight (Mp) = 451
Polydispersity = 80.07
Peak Area = 36653
Mobile Phase = THF Temperature = 45 º C
Detector = Refractive Index Inj. Volume = 50 µl
Concentration = 2.5 mg/ml Flow Rate = 1.2 ml/min
Run Date = 6/17/2014 11:09:42 PM
Column = Jordi Gel DVB 2 x Mixed Bed, 250 x 10 mm
Comments = None
Page 36 of 214
40. Cumulative Wf Distribution CurveFile Name =
UDBW3-2
2.42 3.20 3.97 4.75 5.52 6.29
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.01
CumulativeWf
log(Molecular Weight)
Page 39 of 214
41. Summary of Molecular Weights
File Name = UDBW3-2
Sample Name = J8678 UDB White
Calibration File Name = JordiCalibr061814.ASC
Number Average Molecular Weight (Mn) = 1592 Integration Limits =
Weight Average Molecular Weight (Mw) = 127771 Left = 13.77
Z Average Molecular Weight (Mz) = 311093 Right = 25.02
Peak Maximum Molecular Weight (Mp) = 454
Polydispersity = 80.26
Peak Area = 34060
Mobile Phase = THF Temperature = 45 º C
Detector = Refractive Index Inj. Volume = 50 µl
Concentration = 2.5 mg/ml Flow Rate = 1.2 ml/min
Run Date = 6/18/2014 12:31:39 AM
Column = Jordi Gel DVB 2 x Mixed Bed, 250 x 10 mm
Comments = None
Page 40 of 214
42. Summary of Molecular Weights
File Name = UDBW3-3
Sample Name = J8678 UDB White
Calibration File Name = JordiCalibr061814.ASC
Number Average Molecular Weight (Mn) = 1595 Integration Limits =
Weight Average Molecular Weight (Mw) = 127889 Left = 13.77
Z Average Molecular Weight (Mz) = 310883 Right = 25.02
Peak Maximum Molecular Weight (Mp) = 458
Polydispersity = 80.19
Peak Area = 34124
Mobile Phase = THF Temperature = 45 º C
Detector = Refractive Index Inj. Volume = 50 µl
Concentration = 2.5 mg/ml Flow Rate = 1.2 ml/min
Run Date = 6/18/2014 1:12:34 AM
Column = Jordi Gel DVB 2 x Mixed Bed, 250 x 10 mm
Comments = None
Page 41 of 214
45. Cumulative Wf Distribution CurveFile Name =
UDBC3p1-2
3.75 4.26 4.77 5.28 5.79 6.29
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
CumulativeWf
log(Molecular Weight)
Page 44 of 214
46. Summary of Molecular Weights
File Name = UDBC3p1-2.ASC
Sample Name = J8678 UDB Clear
Calibration File Name = JordiCalibr061814.ASC
Number Average Molecular Weight (Mn) = 91963 Integration Limits =
Weight Average Molecular Weight (Mw) = 179517 Left = 13.77
Z Average Molecular Weight (Mz) = 309103 Right = 21.33
Peak Maximum Molecular Weight (Mp) = 141508
Polydispersity = 1.95
Peak Area = 25859
Mobile Phase = THF Temperature = 45 º C
Detector = Refractive Index Inj. Volume = 50 µl
Concentration = 2.5 mg/ml Flow Rate = 1.2 ml/min
Run Date = 6/17/2014 10:28:47 PM
Column = Jordi Gel DVB 2 x Mixed Bed, 250 x 10 mm
Comments = None
Page 45 of 214
47. Summary of Molecular Weights
File Name = UDBC3p1-3.ASC
Sample Name = J8678 UDB Clear
Calibration File Name = JordiCalibr061814.ASC
Number Average Molecular Weight (Mn) = 93568 Integration Limits =
Weight Average Molecular Weight (Mw) = 180400 Left = 13.77
Z Average Molecular Weight (Mz) = 309956 Right = 21.33
Peak Maximum Molecular Weight (Mp) = 143102
Polydispersity = 1.93
Peak Area = 25906
Mobile Phase = THF Temperature = 45 º C
Detector = Refractive Index Inj. Volume = 50 µl
Concentration = 2.5 mg/ml Flow Rate = 1.2 ml/min
Run Date = 6/17/2014 11:09:42 PM
Column = Jordi Gel DVB 2 x Mixed Bed, 250 x 10 mm
Comments = None
Page 46 of 214
50. Cumulative Wf Distribution CurveFile Name =
UDBW3p1-2
3.75 4.26 4.77 5.28 5.79 6.29
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
CumulativeWf
log(Molecular Weight)
Page 49 of 214
51. Summary of Molecular Weights
File Name = UDBW3p1-2.ASC
Sample Name = J8678 UDB White
Calibration File Name = JordiCalibr061814.ASC
Number Average Molecular Weight (Mn) = 92450 Integration Limits =
Weight Average Molecular Weight (Mw) = 180464 Left = 13.77
Z Average Molecular Weight (Mz) = 311477 Right = 21.33
Peak Maximum Molecular Weight (Mp) = 143658
Polydispersity = 1.95
Peak Area = 24085
Mobile Phase = THF Temperature = 45 º C
Detector = Refractive Index Inj. Volume = 50 µl
Concentration = 2.5 mg/ml Flow Rate = 1.2 ml/min
Run Date = 6/18/2014 12:31:39 AM
Column = Jordi Gel DVB 2 x Mixed Bed, 250 x 10 mm
Comments = None
Page 50 of 214
52. Summary of Molecular Weights
File Name = UDBW3p1-3.ASC
Sample Name = J8678 UDB White
Calibration File Name = JordiCalibr061814.ASC
Number Average Molecular Weight (Mn) = 94431 Integration Limits =
Weight Average Molecular Weight (Mw) = 181181 Left = 13.77
Z Average Molecular Weight (Mz) = 311274 Right = 21.33
Peak Maximum Molecular Weight (Mp) = 143523
Polydispersity = 1.92
Peak Area = 24057
Mobile Phase = THF Temperature = 45 º C
Detector = Refractive Index Inj. Volume = 50 µl
Concentration = 2.5 mg/ml Flow Rate = 1.2 ml/min
Run Date = 6/18/2014 1:12:34 AM
Column = Jordi Gel DVB 2 x Mixed Bed, 250 x 10 mm
Comments = None
Page 51 of 214
55. Cumulative Wf Distribution CurveFile Name =
UDBC3p2-2
2.93 3.09 3.26 3.42 3.59 3.75
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.01
CumulativeWf
log(Molecular Weight)
Page 54 of 214
56. Summary of Molecular Weights
File Name = UDBC3p2-2.ASC
Sample Name = J8678 UDB Clear
Calibration File Name = JordiCalibr061814.ASC
Number Average Molecular Weight (Mn) = 1421 Integration Limits =
Weight Average Molecular Weight (Mw) = 1611 Left = 21.33
Z Average Molecular Weight (Mz) = 1987 Right = 23.72
Peak Maximum Molecular Weight (Mp) = 1349
Polydispersity = 1.13
Peak Area = 923
Mobile Phase = THF Temperature = 45 º C
Detector = Refractive Index Inj. Volume = 50 µl
Concentration = 2.5 mg/ml Flow Rate = 1.2 ml/min
Run Date = 6/17/2014 10:28:47 PM
Column = Jordi Gel DVB 2 x Mixed Bed, 250 x 10 mm
Comments = None
Page 55 of 214
57. Summary of Molecular Weights
File Name = UDBC3p2-3.ASC
Sample Name = J8678 UDB Clear
Calibration File Name = JordiCalibr061814.ASC
Number Average Molecular Weight (Mn) = 1414 Integration Limits =
Weight Average Molecular Weight (Mw) = 1601 Left = 21.33
Z Average Molecular Weight (Mz) = 1970 Right = 23.72
Peak Maximum Molecular Weight (Mp) = 1354
Polydispersity = 1.13
Peak Area = 945
Mobile Phase = THF Temperature = 45 º C
Detector = Refractive Index Inj. Volume = 50 µl
Concentration = 2.5 mg/ml Flow Rate = 1.2 ml/min
Run Date = 6/17/2014 11:09:42 PM
Column = Jordi Gel DVB 2 x Mixed Bed, 250 x 10 mm
Comments = None
Page 56 of 214
60. Cumulative Wf Distribution CurveFile Name =
UDBW3p2-2
2.93 3.09 3.26 3.42 3.59 3.75
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.01
CumulativeWf
log(Molecular Weight)
Page 59 of 214
61. Summary of Molecular Weights
File Name = UDBW3p2-2.ASC
Sample Name = J8678 UDB White
Calibration File Name = JordiCalibr061814.ASC
Number Average Molecular Weight (Mn) = 1392 Integration Limits =
Weight Average Molecular Weight (Mw) = 1546 Left = 21.33
Z Average Molecular Weight (Mz) = 1851 Right = 23.72
Peak Maximum Molecular Weight (Mp) = 1358
Polydispersity = 1.11
Peak Area = 746
Mobile Phase = THF Temperature = 45 º C
Detector = Refractive Index Inj. Volume = 50 µl
Concentration = 2.5 mg/ml Flow Rate = 1.2 ml/min
Run Date = 6/18/2014 12:31:39 AM
Column = Jordi Gel DVB 2 x Mixed Bed, 250 x 10 mm
Comments = None
Page 60 of 214
62. Summary of Molecular Weights
File Name = UDBW3p2-3.ASC
Sample Name = J8678 UDB White
Calibration File Name = JordiCalibr061814.ASC
Number Average Molecular Weight (Mn) = 1385 Integration Limits =
Weight Average Molecular Weight (Mw) = 1526 Left = 21.33
Z Average Molecular Weight (Mz) = 1789 Right = 23.72
Peak Maximum Molecular Weight (Mp) = 1365
Polydispersity = 1.10
Peak Area = 797
Mobile Phase = THF Temperature = 45 º C
Detector = Refractive Index Inj. Volume = 50 µl
Concentration = 2.5 mg/ml Flow Rate = 1.2 ml/min
Run Date = 6/18/2014 1:12:34 AM
Column = Jordi Gel DVB 2 x Mixed Bed, 250 x 10 mm
Comments = None
Page 61 of 214
65. Cumulative Wf Distribution CurveFile Name =
UDBC3p3-2
2.42 2.53 2.63 2.73 2.83 2.93
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
CumulativeWf
log(Molecular Weight)
Page 64 of 214
66. Summary of Molecular Weights
File Name = UDBC3p3-2.ASC
Sample Name = J8678 UDB Clear
Calibration File Name = JordiCalibr061814.ASC
Number Average Molecular Weight (Mn) = 443 Integration Limits =
Weight Average Molecular Weight (Mw) = 454 Left = 23.72
Z Average Molecular Weight (Mz) = 465 Right = 25.02
Peak Maximum Molecular Weight (Mp) = 450
Polydispersity = 1.02
Peak Area = 9780
Mobile Phase = THF Temperature = 45 º C
Detector = Refractive Index Inj. Volume = 50 µl
Concentration = 2.5 mg/ml Flow Rate = 1.2 ml/min
Run Date = 6/17/2014 10:28:47 PM
Column = Jordi Gel DVB 2 x Mixed Bed, 250 x 10 mm
Comments = None
Page 65 of 214
67. Summary of Molecular Weights
File Name = UDBC3p3-3.ASC
Sample Name = J8678 UDB Clear
Calibration File Name = JordiCalibr061814.ASC
Number Average Molecular Weight (Mn) = 445 Integration Limits =
Weight Average Molecular Weight (Mw) = 455 Left = 23.72
Z Average Molecular Weight (Mz) = 466 Right = 25.02
Peak Maximum Molecular Weight (Mp) = 451
Polydispersity = 1.02
Peak Area = 9804
Mobile Phase = THF Temperature = 45 º C
Detector = Refractive Index Inj. Volume = 50 µl
Concentration = 2.5 mg/ml Flow Rate = 1.2 ml/min
Run Date = 6/17/2014 11:09:42 PM
Column = Jordi Gel DVB 2 x Mixed Bed, 250 x 10 mm
Comments = None
Page 66 of 214
70. Cumulative Wf Distribution CurveFile Name =
UDBW3p3-2
2.42 2.53 2.63 2.73 2.83 2.93
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
CumulativeWf
log(Molecular Weight)
Page 69 of 214
71. Summary of Molecular Weights
File Name = UDBW3p3-2.ASC
Sample Name = J8678 UDB White
Calibration File Name = JordiCalibr061814.ASC
Number Average Molecular Weight (Mn) = 448 Integration Limits =
Weight Average Molecular Weight (Mw) = 458 Left = 23.72
Z Average Molecular Weight (Mz) = 469 Right = 25.02
Peak Maximum Molecular Weight (Mp) = 454
Polydispersity = 1.02
Peak Area = 9229
Mobile Phase = THF Temperature = 45 º C
Detector = Refractive Index Inj. Volume = 50 µl
Concentration = 2.5 mg/ml Flow Rate = 1.2 ml/min
Run Date = 6/18/2014 12:31:39 AM
Column = Jordi Gel DVB 2 x Mixed Bed, 250 x 10 mm
Comments = None
Page 70 of 214
72. Summary of Molecular Weights
File Name = UDBW3p3-3.ASC
Sample Name = J8678 UDB White
Calibration File Name = JordiCalibr061814.ASC
Number Average Molecular Weight (Mn) = 451 Integration Limits =
Weight Average Molecular Weight (Mw) = 461 Left = 23.72
Z Average Molecular Weight (Mz) = 473 Right = 25.02
Peak Maximum Molecular Weight (Mp) = 458
Polydispersity = 1.02
Peak Area = 9271
Mobile Phase = THF Temperature = 45 º C
Detector = Refractive Index Inj. Volume = 50 µl
Concentration = 2.5 mg/ml Flow Rate = 1.2 ml/min
Run Date = 6/18/2014 1:12:34 AM
Column = Jordi Gel DVB 2 x Mixed Bed, 250 x 10 mm
Comments = None
Page 71 of 214
74. Qualitative Analysis Report
150 0 ESI
User Chromatograms
Fragmentor Voltage Collision Energy Ionization Mode
--- End Of Report ---
IRM Calibration Status Success DA Method Default.m
Comment
Instrument Name Instrument 1 User Name
Acq Method Default-DualESI-neg.m Acquired Time 7/3/2014 7:36:50 AM
Data Filename J8768_methodblank_neg_1.d Sample Name methodblank
Sample Type Blank Position Vial 42
Page 1 of 1 Printed at: 4:59 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 73 of 214
75. Qualitative Analysis Report
150 0 ESI
User Chromatograms
Fragmentor Voltage Collision Energy Ionization Mode
--- End Of Report ---
IRM Calibration Status Success DA Method Default.m
Comment
Instrument Name Instrument 1 User Name
Acq Method Default-DualESI-pos.m Acquired Time 7/3/2014 6:48:06 AM
Data Filename J8768_methodblank_pos_1.d Sample Name methodblank
Sample Type Blank Position Vial 42
Page 1 of 1 Printed at: 4:59 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 74 of 214
76. Qualitative Analysis Report
150 0 ESI
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
-0.84
-2.28
Ion Form.
C39 H68 Cl O9
C40 H69 O11
Best Match
C39 H68 O9
C39 H68 O9
Score
80.09
93.49
m/z
715.4563
725.4866
Mass
680.4869
680.4879
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
MFG Results
User Chromatograms
Fragmentor Voltage Collision Energy Ionization Mode
User Spectra
Fragmentor Voltage
IRM Calibration Status Success DA Method Default.m
Comment
Instrument Name Instrument 1 User Name
Acq Method Default-DualESI-neg.m Acquired Time 7/3/2014 10:03:03 AM
Data Filename J8768_UDB CLear_neg_1.d Sample Name UDB Clear
Sample Type Blank Position Vial 43
Page 1 of 5 Printed at: 1:59 PM on: 7/25/2014
Page 75 of 214
77. Qualitative Analysis Report
Diff. Ion Form.Best Match Score
MFG Results
m/z Mass
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
1.12
-3.01
Ion Form.
C57 H98 Cl O12
C58 H99 O14
Best Match
C57 H98 O12
C57 H98 O12
Score
72.79
93.21
MFG Results
m/z
1009.6737
1019.7072
Mass
974.7047
974.7088
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Score
91.35
Diff.
-5.14
Ion Form.
C18 H33 O2
MFG Results
m/z
281.2501
Mass
282.2573
Best Match
C18 H34 O2
Page 2 of 5 Printed at: 1:59 PM on: 7/25/2014
Page 76 of 214
78. Qualitative Analysis Report
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
0.01
-1.29
Ion Form.
C55 H98 Cl O10
C56 H99 O12
Best Match
C55 H98 O10
C55 H98 O10
Score
88.92
98.03
MFG Results
m/z
953.6864
963.7155
Mass
918.716
918.7172
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
-3.41
-2.67
Ion Form.
C57 H100 Cl O11
C58 H101 O13
Best Match
C57 H100 O11
C57 H100 O11
Score
85.45
94.53
MFG Results
m/z
995.6985
1005.7275
Mass
960.7298
960.7291
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
-0.48
-3.77
C37 H68 Cl O7
C38 H69 O9
C37 H68 O7
C37 H68 O7
98.26
91.57
659.4664
669.4973
624.4968
624.4989
Page 3 of 5 Printed at: 1:59 PM on: 7/25/2014
Page 77 of 214
79. Qualitative Analysis Report
Diff. Ion Form.Best Match Score
MFG Results
m/z Mass
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
2.36
-0.16
Ion Form.
C55 H100 Cl O9
C56 H101 O11
Best Match
C55 H100 O9
C55 H100 O9
Score
66.9
98.89
MFG Results
m/z
939.7025
949.7352
Mass
904.7346
904.7369
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Score
96.51
Diff.
-1.69
Ion Form.
C58 H103 O12
MFG Results
m/z
991.7475
Mass
946.7489
Best Match
C57 H102 O10
Page 4 of 5 Printed at: 1:59 PM on: 7/25/2014
Page 78 of 214
80. Qualitative Analysis Report
Score (DB)
96.13
Hits (DB)
1
--- End Of Report ---
Name
Linoleic acid
Formula
C18 H32 O2
Ion
(M-H)-
Database Results
m/z
279.2335
Charge State
1
Abundance
48380.76
Score
97.15
Diff.
-1.8
Ion Form.
C18 H31 O2
MFG Results
m/z
279.2335
Mass
280.2407
Best Match
C18 H32 O2
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
1.83
0.42
C57 H104 Cl O9
C58 H105 O11
C57 H104 O9
C57 H104 O9
69.83
98.03
967.7349
977.7662
932.7663
932.7676
Page 5 of 5 Printed at: 1:59 PM on: 7/25/2014
Page 79 of 214
81. Qualitative Analysis Report
150 0 ESI
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
-3.97
-0.78
-0.98
Ion Form.
C15 H23 O4
C15 H22 Na O4
C15 H26 N O4
Best Match
C15 H22 O4
C15 H22 O4
C15 H22 O4
Score
94.87
83.92
97.35
m/z
267.1602
289.1411
284.1861
Mass
266.1529
266.152
266.1521
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
MFG Results
User Chromatograms
Fragmentor Voltage Collision Energy Ionization Mode
User Spectra
Fragmentor Voltage
IRM Calibration Status Some Ions Missed DA Method Default.m
Comment
Instrument Name Instrument 1 User Name
Acq Method Default-DualESI-pos.m Acquired Time 7/3/2014 9:14:19 AM
Data Filename J8768_UDB CLear_pos_1.d Sample Name UDB Clear
Sample Type Blank Position Vial 43
Page 1 of 9 Printed at: 5:00 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 80 of 214
82. Qualitative Analysis Report
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
-3.57
-0.54
-4.29
Ion Form.
C24 H52 O10 P
C24 H51 Na O10 P
C24 H55 N O10 P
Best Match
C24 H51 O10 P
C24 H51 O10 P
C24 H51 O10 P
Score
92.69
97.56
90.15
MFG Results
m/z
531.331
553.3112
548.3584
Mass
530.3239
530.3223
530.3243
Score (DB)
96.91
Hits (DB)
1
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Name
Triphenyl phosphate
Formula
C18 H15 O4 P
Ion
(M+H)+
Database Results
m/z
327.0787
Charge State
1
Abundance
3575331
Diff.
-2.42
0.98
-2.74
Ion Form.
C18 H16 O4 P
C18 H15 Na O4 P
C18 H19 N O4 P
Best Match
C18 H15 O4 P
C18 H15 O4 P
C18 H15 O4 P
Score
96.96
98.05
94.19
MFG Results
m/z
327.0787
349.0596
344.1057
Mass
326.0716
326.0705
326.0717
Page 2 of 9 Printed at: 5:00 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 81 of 214
83. Qualitative Analysis Report
Diff.
-3.92
-4.54
Ion Form.
C39 H68 Na O9
C39 H72 N O9
Best Match
C39 H68 O9
C39 H68 O9
Score
87.44
88
MFG Results
m/z
703.4787
698.5232
Mass
680.489
680.4894
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
-1.78
0.43
Ion Form.
C20 H28 O4 P
C20 H27 Na O4 P
Best Match
C20 H27 O4 P
C20 H27 O4 P
Score
97.63
83.39
MFG Results
m/z
363.1725
385.1536
Mass
362.1653
362.1645
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
1.22
-2.08
Ion Form.
C19 H34 Na O4
C19 H38 N O4
Best Match
C19 H34 O4
C19 H34 O4
Score
97.84
98.37
MFG Results
m/z
349.2347
344.2802
Mass
326.2453
326.2464
Page 3 of 9 Printed at: 5:00 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 82 of 214
84. Qualitative Analysis Report
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Ion Form.
C77 H20 O2 P
C75 H21 Na O2 P
C61 H101 N O8 P
C58 H26 N O17
C55 H63 N O15 P
Diff.
0.98
-1.45
1.7
-0.17
2.28
Score
75.23
73.07
95.89
92.44
78.14
Best Match
C77 H19 O2 P
C75 H21 O2 P
C61 H97 O8 P
C58 H22 O17
C55 H59 O15 P1008.3883
Mass
1006.1113
984.1293
988.6904
990.0859
990.3569
MFG Results
m/z
1007.1222
1007.1222
1006.7244
1008.12
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Score
94.71
Diff.
1.33
Ion Form.
C39 H66 O3 P
MFG Results
m/z
613.4734
Mass
612.4663
Best Match
C39 H65 O3 P
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Page 4 of 9 Printed at: 5:00 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 83 of 214
85. Qualitative Analysis Report
Fragmentor Voltage Collision Energy Ionization Mode
Score
87.63
Diff.
-4.21
Ion Form.
C55 H102 N O10
MFG Results
m/z
936.7536
Mass
918.7199
Best Match
C55 H98 O10
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Score
85.28
Diff.
-4.49
Ion Form.
C57 H104 N O11
MFG Results
m/z
978.765
Mass
960.7309
Best Match
C57 H100 O11
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Score
78.47
Diff.
-5.51
Ion Form.
C57 H102 N O12
MFG Results
m/z
992.7457
Mass
974.7112
Best Match
C57 H98 O12
Page 5 of 9 Printed at: 5:00 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 84 of 214
86. Qualitative Analysis Report
Diff.
-1.67
-3.52
Ion Form.
C57 H106 Na O8
C57 H110 N O8
Best Match
C57 H106 O8
C57 H106 O8
Score
92.35
90.06
MFG Results
m/z
941.7805
936.8262
Mass
918.7903
918.792
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
-3.18
-4.7
Ion Form.
C55 H102 Na O8
C55 H106 N O8
Best Match
C55 H102 O8
C55 H102 O8
Score
80.5
85.29
MFG Results
m/z
913.7517
908.7951
Mass
890.7603
890.7617
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Score
71.56
Diff.
-7.35
Ion Form.
C57 H106 N O10
MFG Results
m/z
964.7879
Mass
946.7543
Best Match
C57 H102 O10
150 0 ESI
Page 6 of 9 Printed at: 5:00 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 85 of 214
87. Qualitative Analysis Report
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
-4.52
-6.55
Ion Form.
C55 H104 Na O7
C55 H108 N O7
Best Match
C55 H104 O7
C55 H104 O7
Score
74.82
75.44
MFG Results
m/z
899.7703
894.8181
Mass
876.7822
876.7839
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
-0.51
-4.12
Ion Form.
C53 H100 Na O7
C53 H104 N O7
Best Match
C53 H100 O7
C53 H100 O7
Score
96.78
87.92
MFG Results
m/z
871.7373
866.7844
Mass
848.7473
848.7504
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Page 7 of 9 Printed at: 5:00 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 86 of 214
88. Qualitative Analysis Report
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Score
78.46
Diff.
-5.89
Ion Form.
C57 H108 N O9
MFG Results
m/z
950.8077
Mass
932.7735
Best Match
C57 H104 O9
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
2.24
1.21
Ion Form.
C21 H44 O4 P
C21 H47 N O4 P
Best Match
C21 H43 O4 P
C21 H43 O4 P
Score
93.71
96.85
MFG Results
m/z
391.2961
408.3233
Mass
390.289
390.2894
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Score
83.92
Diff.
-6.28
Ion Form.
C24 H39 O4
MFG Results
m/z
391.2869
Mass
390.2795
Best Match
C24 H38 O4
Page 8 of 9 Printed at: 5:00 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 87 of 214
89. Qualitative Analysis Report
--- End Of Report ---
Score
85.29
Diff.
4.3
Ion Form.
C57 H100 N O13
MFG Results
m/z
1006.7148
Mass
988.6808
Best Match
C57 H96 O13
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
-5.09
-2.35
Ion Form.
C55 H100 Na O9
C55 H104 N O9
Best Match
C55 H100 O9
C55 H100 O9
Score
73.66
95.37
MFG Results
m/z
927.7326
922.7724
Mass
904.7413
904.7389
Page 9 of 9 Printed at: 5:00 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 88 of 214
90. Qualitative Analysis Report
150 0 ESI
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Score
96.75
Diff.
-1.38
Ion Form.
C40 H69 O11
m/z
725.486
Mass
726.4928
Best Match
C40 H70 O11
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
MFG Results
User Chromatograms
Fragmentor Voltage Collision Energy Ionization Mode
User Spectra
Fragmentor Voltage
IRM Calibration Status Success DA Method Default.m
Comment
Instrument Name Instrument 1 User Name
Acq Method Default-DualESI-neg.m Acquired Time 7/3/2014 12:29:12 PM
Data Filename J8768_UDB White_neg_1.d Sample Name UDB White
Sample Type Blank Position Vial 44
Page 1 of 5 Printed at: 5:00 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 89 of 214
91. Qualitative Analysis Report
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Score
87.14
Diff.
-6.09
Ion Form.
C18 H33 O2
MFG Results
m/z
281.2505
Mass
282.2576
Best Match
C18 H34 O2
Score (DB)
97.31
Hits (DB)
1
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Name
Linoleic acid
Formula
C18 H32 O2
Ion
(M-H)-
Database Results
m/z
279.2333
Charge State
1
Abundance
70716.88
Score
98.26
Diff.
-1.59
Ion Form.
C18 H31 O2
MFG Results
m/z
279.2333
Mass
280.2407
Best Match
C18 H32 O2
Page 2 of 5 Printed at: 5:00 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 90 of 214
92. Qualitative Analysis Report
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
-0.8
-3.1
Ion Form.
C57 H100 Cl O11
C58 H101 O13
Best Match
C57 H100 O11
C57 H100 O11
Score
90.4
92.81
MFG Results
m/z
995.6959
1005.728
Mass
960.7273
960.7295
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
-0.73
-1.23
Ion Form.
C37 H68 Cl O7
C38 H69 O9
Best Match
C37 H68 O7
C37 H68 O7
Score
89.28
96.28
MFG Results
m/z
659.4651
669.4957
Mass
624.497
624.4973
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
-1.16
-1.77
Ion Form.
C57 H98 Cl O12
C58 H99 O14
Best Match
C57 H98 O12
C57 H98 O12
Score
85.77
96.95
MFG Results
m/z
1009.6747
1019.7062
Mass
974.707
974.7076
Page 3 of 5 Printed at: 5:00 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 91 of 214
93. Qualitative Analysis Report
Diff. Ion Form.Best Match Score
MFG Results
m/z Mass
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
-3.69
-0.94
Ion Form.
C57 H102 Cl O10
C58 H103 O12
Best Match
C57 H102 O10
C57 H102 O10
Score
83.9
98.08
MFG Results
m/z
981.7217
991.7468
Mass
946.7508
946.7482
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Score
95.13
Diff.
-2.25
Ion Form.
C56 H99 O12
MFG Results
m/z
963.7164
Mass
918.7181
Best Match
C55 H98 O10
Page 4 of 5 Printed at: 5:00 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 92 of 214
94. Qualitative Analysis Report
--- End Of Report ---
Diff.
0.99
-0.3
Ion Form.
C57 H104 Cl O9
C58 H105 O11
Best Match
C57 H104 O9
C57 H104 O9
Score
95.75
98.16
MFG Results
m/z
967.7381
977.767
Mass
932.7671
932.7683
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
2.24
-0.23
C55 H100 Cl O9
C56 H101 O11
C55 H100 O9
C55 H100 O9
71.62
98.78
939.7038
949.7353
904.7347
904.7369
Page 5 of 5 Printed at: 5:00 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 93 of 214
95. Qualitative Analysis Report
150 0 ESI
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
-3.44
-0.3
Ion Form.
C15 H23 O4
C15 H26 N O4
Best Match
C15 H22 O4
C15 H22 O4
Score
95.56
96.1
m/z
267.1601
284.1859
Mass
266.1527
266.1519
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
MFG Results
User Chromatograms
Fragmentor Voltage Collision Energy Ionization Mode
User Spectra
Fragmentor Voltage
IRM Calibration Status Some Ions Missed DA Method Default.m
Comment
Instrument Name Instrument 1 User Name
Acq Method Default-DualESI-pos.m Acquired Time 7/3/2014 11:40:36 AM
Data Filename J8768_UDB White_pos_1.d Sample Name UDB White
Sample Type Blank Position Vial 44
Page 1 of 9 Printed at: 5:01 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 94 of 214
96. Qualitative Analysis Report
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
0.73
-2.03
Ion Form.
C19 H34 Na O4
C19 H38 N O4
Best Match
C19 H34 O4
C19 H34 O4
Score
95.18
98.51
MFG Results
m/z
349.2345
344.2802
Mass
326.2455
326.2464
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
-2.17
2.16
-2.69
Ion Form.
C18 H16 O4 P
C18 H15 Na O4 P
C18 H19 N O4 P
Best Match
C18 H15 O4 P
C18 H15 O4 P
C18 H15 O4 P
Score
98.16
84.11
96.37
MFG Results
m/z
327.0788
349.0594
344.1057
Mass
326.0715
326.0701
326.0717
Page 2 of 9 Printed at: 5:01 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 95 of 214
97. Qualitative Analysis Report
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Score
94.2
Diff.
0.56
Ion Form.
C39 H66 O3 P
MFG Results
m/z
613.4738
Mass
612.4668
Best Match
C39 H65 O3 P
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
-3.88
-4.1
Ion Form.
C39 H68 Na O9
C39 H72 N O9
Best Match
C39 H68 O9
C39 H68 O9
Score
88.21
90.05
MFG Results
m/z
703.4787
698.5228
Mass
680.489
680.4891
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
-2.65
-3.31
Ion Form.
C20 H28 O4 P
C20 H31 N O4 P
Best Match
C20 H27 O4 P
C20 H27 O4 P
Score
96.53
95.69
MFG Results
m/z
363.1728
380.1998
Mass
362.1657
362.1659
Page 3 of 9 Printed at: 5:01 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 96 of 214
98. Qualitative Analysis Report
Score Diff. Ion Form.
MFG Results
m/z Mass Best Match
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
7.72
6.69
Ion Form.
C21 H44 O4 P
C21 H47 N O4 P
Best Match
C21 H43 O4 P
C21 H43 O4 P
Score
77.36
82.56
MFG Results
m/z
391.2939
408.3211
Mass
390.2869
390.2873
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Score
81.62
Diff.
-4.79
Ion Form.
C57 H102 N O12
MFG Results
m/z
992.7451
Mass
974.7105
Best Match
C57 H98 O12
Page 4 of 9 Printed at: 5:01 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 97 of 214
99. Qualitative Analysis Report
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Score
81.13
Diff.
-5.42
Ion Form.
C57 H106 N O10
MFG Results
m/z
964.7861
Mass
946.7524
Best Match
C57 H102 O10
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Score
82.98
Diff.
-5.14
Ion Form.
C55 H102 N O10
MFG Results
m/z
936.7544
Mass
918.7207
Best Match
C55 H98 O10
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
96.48 -1.82 C57 H104 N O11978.7623 960.7283 C57 H100 O11
Page 5 of 9 Printed at: 5:01 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 98 of 214
100. Qualitative Analysis Report
Score
95.08
Diff.
0.7
Ion Form.
C55 H99 O7
MFG Results
m/z
871.7387
Mass
870.7306
Best Match
C55 H98 O7
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Score
85.49
Diff.
-4.58
Ion Form.
C57 H110 N O8
MFG Results
m/z
936.8267
Mass
918.793
Best Match
C57 H106 O8
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Score
86.87
Diff.
-4.37
Ion Form.
C55 H106 N O8
MFG Results
m/z
908.7948
Mass
890.7614
Best Match
C55 H102 O8
Page 6 of 9 Printed at: 5:01 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 99 of 214
101. Qualitative Analysis Report
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Score
77.43
Diff.
-8.55
Ion Form.
C24 H39 O4
MFG Results
m/z
391.2876
Mass
390.2803
Best Match
C24 H38 O4
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Diff.
-3.4
-4.73
Ion Form.
C55 H104 Na O7
C55 H108 N O7
Best Match
C55 H104 O7
C55 H104 O7
Score
74.8
84.46
MFG Results
m/z
899.7684
894.8165
Mass
876.7812
876.7824
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Page 7 of 9 Printed at: 5:01 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 100 of 214
102. Qualitative Analysis Report
Fragmentor Voltage Collision Energy Ionization Mode
Score
93.83
Diff.
-2.56
Ion Form.
C57 H108 N O9
MFG Results
m/z
950.8035
Mass
932.7704
Best Match
C57 H104 O9
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Score
97.85
Diff.
-1.43
Ion Form.
C55 H104 N O9
MFG Results
m/z
922.7717
Mass
904.738
Best Match
C55 H100 O9
Fragmentor Voltage
150
Collision Energy
0
Ionization Mode
ESI
Page 8 of 9 Printed at: 5:01 PM on: 7/23/2014
Page 101 of 214