Ok, I have seen the peak at 1260; however, this same peak appeared in my reagent blank and plates only blank though they were smaller in height. So, then using the 1260 peak is a questionable comparator--unless I ''subtract out" the signal from the reagent blank no?
In contrast, the peak doublet at 1014 and 1091.5, which is clearly visible does NOT show up in either the reagent blank nor plates only blank. Arguably, this peak is the more justified as a comparator no?
To the lotion sample that contained 10%w/w PDMS, I treated with acid, then MeCl2, then separated layers, then evap'd off the solvent, then reconstituted with solvent (10 mL), then assayed about 1 small drop onto the plates.
The signal is not linear--though there was a qualitative difference between the 1x conc sample vs. the 4x conc sample.
I believe some of the PDMS signal is being contributed to by the glass erlenmyere flask (which contains Silicon) no?
Why would th use of Toluene instead of MeCl2 remove the aberrant signal?
I believe tha the PDMS signal from the doublet is the more defensible (and analytically valid) comparator because it provided a clean background and the PDMS signals were defelctions of it no?