For the report using GC-MS approach,
56 no separation of any isomeric peaks were really shown.
Figure 10 of that report was misleading. It gave the readers the impression that they were able to separate the
m/
z 620 WEs into three isomers. However, on careful read of the legend, one would know the three spectra (B, C, D)
56 actually correspond to the same chromatographic peak shown in A
56 (41.08–41.12 minutes; some variation in retention time is normal). The other peaks in
Figure 10A
56 are probably species with a chain length longer than the species corresponding to the 41.12-minute peak. Moreover, the important molecular ions (
m/
z 620) of claimed WE of interest were not shown; instead, the spectra B, C, and D
56 suggest the 41.12 chromatographic peak most likely contained a mixture of WEs with three different
m/
z values (563.5, 577.6, and 591.7), which is consistent with the fact that the WE with
m/
z 618.7 (
Fig. 10E)
56 eluted out later (41.71 minute), as generally the longer the chain of WEs, the later the WEs eluted out (please see
Fig. 3B of Butovich et al.
56). It seems their identification of WEs was based on predicted retention time, which may vary from run to run and thus cannot identify an unknown species correctly. On the other hand, it is questionable how the branched chain (iso and anteiso) WEs could be identified in that work based on the fragmentation patterns of branched chain fatty acid methyl esters. It is known that the fragmentation pattern of WEs is significantly different from methyl esters.
86 In addition, in a recent study of a series of straight-chain and branched chain WE standards, the authors stated “The mass spectra of WEs with mono-methyl branching near the end or in the middle of the FA chain closely resembled those of straight-chain esters and showed only slight variations in the peak intensities.”
87 Indeed, the claim of detection of anteiso branched compound (Fig. 11 of Butovich et al.
56) is unconvincing: the peaks
m/
z 213.3 and 241.3 with
m/
z 28 apart were labeled as (M − 58 + H) and (M − 28 + H), respectively, which were actually
m/
z 30 apart. In fact, their quantitation of WEs was based on isobaric species of same
m/
z instead of each isomer peak (
Table 1 of Butovich et al.
56), which again suggests these peaks could not be separated by Butovich et al.
56