TABLE III

Comparison of Library RRFs with Average RRFs Based on the Acquisition of Response Curves for a Relevant Subset of GC-MS Amenable Compounds in the Database across Different Solvents and Instruments in a 10–50 mg/L Range

Cas	Compound Name	Library RRF	Response Function RRF	Linear Range	Library RRF Value/Response Model RRF
Cas	Compound Name	Library RRF	Estimate ± SE	Linear Range	%
583-39-1	2-Mercaptobenzothiazole^a	0.112	0.535 ± 0.038	2 mg/L–50 mg/L	21
149-57-5	2-Ethylhexanoic acid	0.346	0.494 ± 0.016	500 µg/L–50 mg/L	70
5464-77-7	N,N-Dibenzylformamide	0.485	0.748 ± 0.019	500 µg/L–50 mg/L	87
112-52-7	1-Chlorododecane	0.568	0.856 ± 0.026	50 µg/L–50 mg/L	66
104-76-7	2-Ethyl-1-Hexanol	0.515	0.518 ± 0.020	50 µg/L–50 mg/L	99
112-12-9	2-Undecanone	0.627	0.692 ± 0.030	50 µg/L–50 mg/L	91
122-39-4	Diphenylamine	0.834	0.938 ± 0.021	50 µg/L–50 mg/L	89
593-49-7	n-Heptacosane	0.995	1.149 ± 0.038	50 µg/L–50 mg/L	87
128-37-0	BHT	1.010	0.923 ± 0.010	50 µg/L–50 mg/L	109
117-81-7	DEHP	1.010	1.104 ± 0.027	50 µg/L–50 mg/L	91
31570-04-4	Irgafos 168	1.298	0.964 ± 0.016	50 µg/L–50 mg/L	135
129-00-0	Pyrene	1.377	1.193 ± 0.017	50 µg/L–50 mg/L	115
			Average RRF accuracy (%):		93 ± 22%

↵a Based on the RRF database, 2-mercaptobenzothiazole quantification should be performed by LC-MS, whereas estimated concentrations by GC-MS are expected to have a higher degree of uncertainty owing to the low RRF in this technique.