[brohemath]

I am used to reading GC/MS for identifying chemicals, however I was sent this:



which seems to be missing page 2.

these peaks do not correspond to GC/MS of this same chemical in database.

Any help deciphering this would be appreciated, the sender said it was GC, but could this be LC?

and if so, what should be on page 2? 

[Furanone]

The method says it is for Etizolam so it seems like it is a one compound determination and chromatography is used to separate out any impurities. Therefore the compound of interest, Etizolam, is likely peak 4 since it is massive in comparison to all other peaks based on bottom chromatogram (VWD1 Variable Wavelength1 set at 205 nm). There is no mass spectrometer detector to identify compound based on comparing to a mass spectral database, so you need to use retention time of running a known standard of Etizolam using same method and see that it elutes at same retention time and has an absorbance at 205nm but no absorbance at 254nm (based on DAD1 Diode Array Detector1 in middle chromatogram).

[mjc123]

It is definitely LC, you are given the column, eluent and flow rate, and UV is not a usual detector for GC. What is on page 2? Maybe just the bottom border of the table, not worth sending you.

[brohemath]

thank you both for the replies, so definitely LC, that helps.
the other reason why I asked about page 2 is because when I get GC results it could be 4 or 5 pages and there is relevant data on each page, like aduterates and toxins that should not be there.

It was clear this was a dedicated test for this chemical, but what was unclear is if it matches results in a database, and I have not LC standard for this chemical to compare the peaks to and the only ones I can find are for metabolites.

thanks again.

[Arkcon]

You keep asking for a database, and I don't know why you are.  The conditions for a separation are so varied, such a database wouldn't likely exist.  Some people claim, that the mass spec, by ion impact ionization of petrochemicals, is distinctive enough to provide a "fingerprint" for certain grades and sources of petrochemicals.  But as sketchy as that is, no one claims to have databases of profiles of HPLC results for pharmaceuticals.

[TheUnassuming]

Definitely LC, GC's don't tend to use MeOH/MeCN mobile phases.

With the information you have, you can't really determine anything other than you have a mostly pure compound with certain retention times/absorbances on your specific instrument.  I've seen some instruments with internal databases you can create, basically tagging certain profiles that will allow the program to suggest identities on later runs... but no external databases that I've seen. 

What exactly are you trying to determine?

[brohemath]

Definitely LC, GC's don't tend to use MeOH/MeCN mobile phases.

With the information you have, you can't really determine anything other than you have a mostly pure compound with certain retention times/absorbances on your specific instrument.  I've seen some instruments with internal databases you can create, basically tagging certain profiles that will allow the program to suggest identities on later runs... but no external databases that I've seen. 

What exactly are you trying to determine?

well for one I was trying to determine if the company that sent this as a "GC/MS" was fibbing, which it seems they are.

As far as database question the other poster asked about, we have huge GC databases that cover thousands of chemicals, this is how we identify them, one is called Forendex but there are a dozen or more private ones you can order GC standards for to compare your outcomes to, surprised people here have not heard of MS databases, they are literally the backbone of the identification process in the research chemical industry, we share them from lab to lab when a new chemical comes up. In rare cases when a we do not have a GC outcome for a chemical we will order a sample of one from a lab that already has a NMR confirmed chemical and then we run our own GC profile for the confirmed sample against the unconfirmed sample.

[Doc Oc]

The company not only lied about sending you a GC/MS, they sent you a terrible LC. Based on what I can see there's nothing in it. Yes, there's a big pure looking peak in the 205 nm spectra. That wavelength also absorbs solvents like dichloromethane and methanol, so I wouldn't trust that one bit. Etizolam has strong chromophores that should show up in the 254 nm chromatogram easily. The 254 looks blank, which means they either sent you the results from a blank or they diluted the sample so much it was below the limit of detection.

What you're seeing in the report is the AUC for everything in the 205 nm chromatogram. The final peak is at 11.937 min, so that's the end of the report. What's probably on page 2 is stuff like instrument or method details. Likely irrelevant to what you want, but if it's a company that you paid for data then there's no excuse not to send you the 2nd page. There's plenty of evidence here that they lied to you and didn't do what they said they would. I'd get on the phone and have a stern conversation with them, especially if you paid for their service.