Determination of Polymerized Triglycerides
by High Pressure Liquid Chromatography
and Corona Veo Charged Aerosol Detector
Qi Zhang, Bruce Bailey, Dave Thomas, Marc Plante, and Ian Acworth
Thermo Fisher Scientific, Chelmsford, MA, USA

Overview

Methods

Purpose: To create a reverse phase high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC)
method to determine polymerized triacylglycerides in used cooking oil, using a single
calibrant, as a demonstration of the universality of charged aerosol detection with nonvolatile analytes.

Sample Preparation

Methods: A ternary gradient, HPLC method using a non-porous C18 column wasdeveloped to separate and quantify polymeric triacylglycerides as a sharp peak andwithout a standard.
Results: The method was quantitative for both the triacylglycerides and the polymerized
triacylglycerides using a single, linear calibration standard.

Introduction
Triaclyglycerides (TAGs), which form the bulk of vegetable and animal oils, are subject
to polymerization reactions when heated. These reactions occur by thermal
polymerization1 or by oxidative polymerization reaction via radicals. These polymericcompounds create high-boiling point, higher viscosity,2,3 and insoluble materials, which
can affect product quality and properties. For cooking, these polymerized triglycerides(PTGs) can result in increased oil absorption into cooked foods,4 gumming of the frybath, and possibly unhealthful conditions such as reduced digestibility.5
The current method for the determination of these PTGs is by HPLC with size exclusion
chromatography (SEC) and refractive index (RI) detection, which also requires a solid
phase extraction (SPE) process to remove these polymers from the TAGs.6 A reverse
phase HPLC method was developed, using a C18 column and gradient elution
chromatography using the Thermo Scientific™ Dionex™ Corona™ Veo™ Charged Aerosol
Detector. This method has several advantages: no SPE is required, as the TAGs do notinterfere with the analysis of the PTGs, the chromatography provides more informationin the equivalent time, and the detector is highly sensitive and precise, thereby
improving data quality.
Charged aerosol detection (CAD) is a mass sensitive technique for determining levels of
any non-volatile and many semi-volatile analytes after separation by HPLC. The use of
CAD for the analysis of lipids is well documented, as it will detect any non-volatile
analyte with a uniform response factor and allows use of gradient methods, unlike
refractive Index detectors. HPLC methods using Corona Veo charged aerosol detection
have limits of detection typically between high-picograms to low nanograms on column
and have a wide dynamic range from nanogram to microgram levels, with highreproducibility. A schematic of the Corona Veo charged aerosol detector is shown in
Figure 1. Unlike ELSD, no changes in gain settings are needed to determine high andlow-level analyte concentrations.

The standard used, extra v
methanol/tetrahydrofuran (diluted incrementally by 50
used in the calibration was

Heated oil samples were p
beaker to a temperature oand stored in HPLC vials f

Samples, including refinedconcentration of 10.0 mg/m
(samples heated for 240, 2
then dilution with an equiv

Liquid Chromatography
HPLC System:
Therm
a DG
3000
Mobile Phase A:
Wate
Mobile Phase B:
Aceto
Mobile Phase C:
2-Pro
Sample Temp.:
10 °C
Injection Volume:
2.00
Column:Imtak
Column Temp.:
40 °C
Detector:
Coro
Evaporation Temp.: 80 °C
Data Rate:
10 Hz
Power Functions:
0–1
Filter:5 sec
Gradient:Time(minutes)
-6
0
4
15
17
18

For non-volatile analytes (greater than approximately 350 °C standard pressure boilingpoint), the Corona detectors can provide a uniform response factor. This allows the useof a single calibrant to determine the amounts of other, non-volatile analytes. The TAGs
and polymers are both non-volatile, and a calibration plot created for TAGs was found tobe valid for the determination of the amounts of polymer present in heated oil samples.

21
22
25
26

Electrometer

Spray
Chamber

Output Signal
is directly
proportional
to analyte
quantity

Inlet

All data was collected andChromeleon™ Chromatogr

Results

HeatedEvaporation
Tube

Chromatography

Ion trap

FocusJet™
Concentric
Nebulizer

27
Data Analysis

ChargeCollector

Activedrain

CoronaCharger
MixingChamber

FIGURE 1. Schematic of the Corona Veo Charged Aerosol Detector.

2 Determination of Polymerized Triglycerides by High Pressure Liquid Chromatography and Corona Veo Charged Aerosol Detector

A non-porous C18 column
into the pores of packing m

For aerosol-based detecto
gradient, an inverse gradie
factor of analytes across thcolumn at 100% organic e
consistent response factor

In having the polymer pea
simplified, as all of the poly
only one power function va

Methods

chromatography (HPLC)
cooking oil, using a single
d aerosol detection with non-orous C18 column wasides as a sharp peak andlycerides and the polymerized

and animal oils, are subject
occur by thermal
radicals. These polymericnd insoluble materials, which
se polymerized triglycerides
oods,4 gumming of the fry
digestibility.5

by HPLC with size exclusion
which also requires a solidfrom the TAGs.6 A reverseand gradient elution
rona™ Veo™ Charged Aerosol
required, as the TAGs do not
y provides more informationand precise, thereby

nique for determining levels ofaration by HPLC. The use of
detect any non-volatile
radient methods, unlike
eo charged aerosol detectiono low nanograms on column
ram levels, with highrosol detector is shown in
eeded to determine high andSample Preparation
The standard used, extra virgin olive oil (EVOO), was dissolved inmethanol/tetrahydrofuran (THF) (1:1) at an initial concentration of 10.0 mg/mL, anddiluted incrementally by 50% to a low concentration of 78 ug/mL. The first standard
used in the calibration was at a concentration of 5.00 mg/mL.
Heated oil samples were prepared by heating 200 mL of EVOO in a 1 L, covered
beaker to a temperature of 270 °C. Aliquots of oil were removed with a metal spatulaand stored in HPLC vials for later dilution.

eter

Calibration linearity is an imporaerosol detection is inherently nThus, differently shaped peak efunction feature, response varia
power function can be used toSamples, including refined safflower oil, were dissolved in methanol/THF (1:1) at aconcentration of 10.0 mg/mL and then diluted 50%. Samples with undissolved material(samples heated for 240, 270, and 300 minutes) required the addition of THF first, andthen dilution with an equivalent volume of methanol.
Liquid Chromatography
HPLC System:
Thermo Scientific™ Dionex™ UltiMate™ 3000 system consisting ofa DGP-3600RS pump, WPS-3000TRS autosampler, and TCC3000RS column oven
Mobile Phase A:
Water/methanol/acetic acid (600:400:4)
Mobile Phase B:
Acetonitrile/acetic acid (1000:4)
Mobile Phase C:
2-Propanol/THF (800:200)
Sample Temp.:
10 °C
Injection Volume:
2.00 L
Column:Imtakt Presto-FF* C18, 2 m, 4.6x150 mm
Column Temp.:
40 °C
Detector:
Corona Veo RS
Evaporation Temp.: 80 °C
Data Rate:
10 Hz
Power Functions:0 – 19 minutes, 1.3; 19 – 27 minutes, 2.0
Filter:5 seconds
Gradient:
Time
Flow Rate%A%B%C(minutes)(mL/min)°C standard pressure boilingse factor. This allows the use
n-volatile analytes. The TAGs
created for TAGs was found toresent in heated oil samples.
Output Signal
is directly
proportional
to analyte
quantity

Calibration
The standard used for calibratio
TAGs with small amounts of dia
In using standards with known
calibrate the instrument for the
analyte particles, with compoun
Corona charged aerosol detectforming compounds with low va

To determine the power functio
injected and analyzed. A chrom
Figure 2. When a non-linear ca
Chromeleon CDS 7.2, a conve
CAD output is provided. A linea
values are used and for the TA

Since no standard or known cosample obtained after 150 minu
volumes. Injection volumes of 1
plotted to create known respon
means of calibration for the pol
2.00 was determined. A chrom
shown in Figure 3 and this illus

After the power function values
using these values during spec
calibration sequence was perfo
and fit to a linear equation, withvolume-calibration plot for the p
70

pA

-6

0.4

98

2

0

0

0.4

98

2

0

4

0.4

72

28

0

15

0.9

0

100

0

40

17

1.0

0

100

0

30

18

0.6

0

0

100

20

21

0.5

0

0

100

22

0.5

0

100

0

25

0.5

0

100

0

0

26

0.5

98

2

0

-10

27

0.6

98

2

0

Data Analysis

60
50

10

0.0

All data was collected and processed using the Thermo Scientific™ Dionex™
Chromeleon™ Chromatography Data System (CDS) 7.2 SR3 software and data station.

50

Results

40

Chromatography

30

A non-porous C18 column was selected to avoid polymeric analytes from accumulating
into the pores of packing media and thereby impairing performance.

25

15

CoronaCharger

For aerosol-based detectors, and where water content changes significantly across a
gradient, an inverse gradient is typically employed to eliminate changes in response
factor of analytes across the gradient. In this method, the main analytes elute from thecolumn at 100% organic eluent, no inverse gradients were required to maintain aconsistent response factor for these non-volatile analytes.

-5

Aerosol Detector.

In having the polymer peak as a single peak, the sensitivity and quantitation is
simplified, as all of the polymers are eluted at the same / similar retention time, andonly one power function value needs to be determined for this complex analyte.

ChargeCollector

2.5

5.0

7.5

FIGURE 2. HPLC-CAD chrom
methanol/tetrahydrofuran (1:
pA

45

35

20

10
5
0
0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

FIGURE 3. HPLC-CAD chrom
270 °C) in methanol/tetrahydr

Thermo Scientific Poster Note • PITTCON • PN71561-EN 0215S 3

s dissolved incentration of 10.0 mg/mL, andof 78 ug/mL. The first standard
mg/mL.

L of EVOO in a 1 L, covered
ere removed with a metal spatula

Calibration linearity is an important factor for a quantitative method. Since charged
aerosol detection is inherently nonlinear, response factors can vary with peak height.
Thus, differently shaped peak exhibit different response curves. By using the CAD powerfunction feature, response variability for different peaks can be eliminated. The CAD
power function can be used to provide linear peak area correlations with mass.

ed in methanol/THF (1:1) at a
Samples with undissolved material
uired the addition of THF first, andTo determine the power function value for the TAGs, five concentrations of EVOO were
injected and analyzed. A chromatogram of 5 g on column (o.c.) of EVOO is shown in
Figure 2. When a non-linear calibration plot is subjected to different Power Law values in
Chromeleon CDS 7.2, a convenient way to determine the power function value (PFV) for
CAD output is provided. A linear calibration fit can then be obtained when correct PFV
values are used and for the TAGs a PFV of 1.30 provided the best, linear fit.

iMate™ 3000 system consisting of
00TRS autosampler, and TCC-

0:400:4)

Since no standard or known concentration was available for the polymer peak, thesample obtained after 150 minute of heating was injected with four different injection
volumes. Injection volumes of 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 L were analyzed and response wasplotted to create known response differences between injected amounts. This served as ameans of calibration for the polymeric TAGs. Using Chromeleon Power Law, a PFV of
2.00 was determined. A chromatogram of EVOO, heated at 270 °C for 210 minutes isshown in Figure 3 and this illustrates the mount of polymeric TAGs produced.

.6x150 mm

After the power function values were determined, method parameters were adjusted
using these values during specified retention time windows (see Method Conditions). A
calibration sequence was performed, and the peak area vs. total glycerols was plottedand fit to a linear equation, with an R2=0.9997, as shown in Figure 4. The corresponding,volume-calibration plot for the polymer peak is shown in Figure 5.

nutes, 2.0

%B

%C

70

2

0

60

2

0

28

0

pA

R2= 0.9997

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

0

2

100

0

30

0

100

20

0

100

100

0

100

0

0

2

0

-10

2

0

6

FIGURE 4. Linear calibr
total EVOO glycerols, fr
10 g o.c., each in tripli
1.30.
Sample Analysis

The heated EVOO sampl
integrated and quantified
integrated and quantified
heated oil samples was p
80
70
60
50
40
30

0

0

4

10

50

100

0

50

FIGURE 6. Percent poly10

2 - DAG-2 - 14.346
1 - MAG - 10.187
min
0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

27.0

FIGURE 2. HPLC-CAD chromatogram of 5 g o.c. of EVOO in
methanol/tetrahydrofuran (1:1).
50

pA

4 - Polymer - 20.814

45Percent Mass Analyzed

30
25

nt changes significantly across aeliminate changes in responsed, the main analytes elute from thewere required to maintain a
ytes.

15

20
2 - DAG-2 - 14.357

10

1 - DAG-1 - 13.495

5

100
80
60
40
20
0

0
-5

To confirm the validity of
10 µg o.c.) was plotted ov
polymer produced, and is
the experiment was appro
120

35

ymeric analytes from accumulatingg performance.

Calibrations based on depossible using the CAD. T
developed, the total amou
polymer peak produced dSince both the EVOO pea
assumed to be non-volati

3 - TAG - 17.283

40

sitivity and quantitation isme / similar retention time, anded for this complex analyte.

35

External

20
3 - TAG - 17.209

40

mo Scientific™ Dionex™
7.2 SR3 software and data station.

Oil (total glycerols)
40 pA*min

Percent-polymer

Calibration
The standard used for calibration purposes was the EVOO, itself, which is comprised of
TAGs with small amounts of diacylglycerides (DAGs), and monoacylglycerides (MAGs).
In using standards with known concentrations, the total peak area can be used tocalibrate the instrument for the response factor for these analytes. Since CAD detects
analyte particles, with compound volatility as the major factor with regards to signal,“theCorona charged aerosol detector is characterized by a uniform response toward aerosolforming compounds with low vapor pressures,” or high-boiling points.7

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

min
25.0
27.0

FIGURE 3. HPLC-CAD chromatogram of EVOO (heated for 210 minutes at
270 °C) in methanol/tetrahydrofuran (1:1).

4 Determination of Polymerized Triglycerides by High Pressure Liquid Chromatography and Corona Veo Charged Aerosol Detector

050

FIGURE 7. Percent total

e method. Since charged
can vary with peak height.
urves. By using the CAD powern be eliminated. The CAD
rrelations with mass.

oncentrations of EVOO weren (o.c.) of EVOO is shown ino different Power Law values in
power function value (PFV) for
obtained when correct PFV
the best, linear fit.

or the polymer peak, thewith four different injection
re analyzed and response was
cted amounts. This served as aeleon Power Law, a PFV of
at 270 °C for 210 minutes is
ric TAGs produced.

parameters were adjusteds (see Method Conditions). A
s. total glycerols was plottedn Figure 4. The corresponding,gure 5.

35

CAD_1

R2= 0.9997

External

CAD_1_PL_2.00

R2= 0.9992

150

30

20
15

100

70

75

60

50

10
µg o.c.
0

2

4

6

8

10

FIGURE 4. Linear calibration fit of
total EVOO glycerols, from 0.156 –10 g o.c., each in triplicate, PFV =
1.30.

12

0

µL
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

FIGURE 5. Power Law linear
calibration fit of EVOO-polymers,
with PFV = 2.00, using four, different
injection volumes (y-axis not scaled).

30
20
10
0

The heated EVOO samples were analyzed and all of the acylglycerol peaks were
integrated and quantified with the TG calibration equation. The polymer peak was also
integrated and quantified using the same equation. The trend of percent-polymer in theheated oil samples was plotted over time and is shown in Figure 6.

-10

80

0

min
22.5

25.0

27.0

4 - Polymer - 20.814

60

40

0

50

100

150
200
Time (minutes)

250

300

350

Calibrations based on detector uniform response factors for non-volatile analytes are
possible using the CAD. To verify that a valid quantitative method of analysis wasdeveloped, the total amounts of EVOO peaks (MAGs, DAGs, and TAGs) and the total
polymer peak produced during heating periods (shown in Figure 6) were evaluated.
Since both the EVOO peaks and the unknown and complex polymer peak areassumed to be non-volatile the calibration results used in this study should be valid.
To confirm the validity of this calibration process, the percent mass found (relative to
10 µg o.c.) was plotted over all injections, covering the complete range of percentpolymer produced, and is shown in Figure 7. The total range of absolute error acrossthe experiment was approximately ±3 %.

Percent Mass Analyzed

d for 210 minutes at

8

A method was created tooils, from low to high lev



The Corona Charged Ae
results for all non-volatile
response factors are proWhen non-volatile analy
to use calibrations obtain
non-volatile analytes sinWater content changes w
response because nebu
using an inverse gradien
analytes. No inverse gra

References

1. Newar, W.W. Lipids, Cha
Marcel Dekker, Inc. New

2. Berger, K.G. “The Practi
Research Institute of Ma

3. Teah, Y.K. “Improvemen
olein,” Palm Oil Develop

4. Blumenthal, M. M. “A ne
Food Technology, 45, (15. http://www.researchgate
Term_in_Vivo_Digestibil
f_Thermoxidized_Palm_

100
80

6. Dobarganes, M. C.; Vela
compounds polymerized
and fats” Pure Appl. Che

y = 0.020658x + 97.74

60

7. Górecki, T.; Lynen, F.; Sz
Chromatography Using C
186-3192.

40
20
0

22.5

6



30

120

min
25.0
27.0

4

FIGURE 8. HPLC-CAD chrom50

G - 17.283

2Conclusions

70

FIGURE 6. Percent polymer in 270 °C-heated EVOO over five hours’ time, n=2.

20.0

40

3.0

Sample Analysis

0

20.0

pA

50

25

5

A sample of refined safflower
Figure 8. Polymers can be cr
a small polymer peak is found
80

125

25

0

Oil (Polymer)
175

10

VOO in5External

20

AG - 17.209

5

Oil (total glycerols)
40 pA*min

Percent-polymer

O, itself, which is comprised ofmonoacylglycerides (MAGs).
ak area can be used tonalytes. Since CAD detects
tor with regards to signal,“theform response toward aerosolling points.7

0

50

100

150
200
Time (minutes)

250

300

FIGURE 7. Percent total quantified mass over five hours’ time, n=2.

350

*The Imtakt Presto FF-C18 column is a

All trademarks are the property of Therm

This information is not intended to encou
intellectual property rights of others.

Thermo Scientific Poster Note • PITTCON • PN71561-EN 0215S 5)External

CAD_1_PL_2.00

R2= 0.9992

A sample of refined safflower oil was analyzed, and a chromatogram is shown in
Figure 8. Polymers can be created during the deodorizing and refining processes, anda small polymer peak is found with a relative mass of 0.12%.
80

pA

TAG

70
60
50
µL

5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

5. Power Law linear
on fit of EVOO-polymers,
V = 2.00, using four, different
n volumes (y-axis not scaled).

40

3.0
30
20
10

Polymer – 0.12% Total

DAG-1 DAG-20acylglycerol peaks were
n. The polymer peak was also
trend of percent-polymer in then Figure 6.

-10

min
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

FIGURE 8. HPLC-CAD chromatogram of refined safflower oil.

Conclusions

250

300

350

over five hours’ time, n=2.

for non-volatile analytes aree method of analysis wasAGs, and TAGs) and the totaln Figure 6) were evaluated.
plex polymer peak aren this study should be valid.

cent mass found (relative toomplete range of percentange of absolute error acrossA method was created to determined polymeric triacylglycerides in vegetableoils, from low to high levels without the need of a polymer standard.



The Corona Charged Aerosol Detectors can provide quantitative, analyticalresults for all non-volatile analytes (both simple and complex) when uniform
response factors are produced.

When non-volatile analytes are analyzed using linear calibration fits, it is possible
to use calibrations obtained with one standard to determine amounts of all othernon-volatile analytes since the detector provides uniform response factors.



Water content changes when using gradient methods can alter detector
response because nebulizer efficiencies change. This can be easily mitigated byusing an inverse gradient so that uniform response factors can be obtained for all
analytes. No inverse gradient was required for this method.

References
1. Newar, W.W. Lipids, Chapter 5 in “Food Chemistry,” 3rd Ed. By O.R. Fennema,
Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, pp. 225-319.
2. Berger, K.G. “The Practice of frying” PORIM Technology, 9, (1984), Palm Oil
Research Institute of Malaysia.
3. Teah, Y.K. “Improvements in the frying quality of vegetable shortenings and palm
olein,” Palm Oil Development, 8, (1988), 3-7.
4. Blumenthal, M. M. “A new look at the chemistry and physics of deep fat frying,”
Food Technology, 45, (1991), 68-71.
5. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/231556345_ShortTerm_in_Vivo_Digestibility_of_Triglyceride_Polymers_Dimers_and_Monomers_o
f_Thermoxidized_Palm_Olein_Used_in_Deep-Frying (accessed February 2015).
6. Dobarganes, M. C.; Velasco, J.; Dieffenbacher, A. “Determination of polar
compounds polymerized and oxidized triacylglycerols, and diacylglycerols in oils
and fats” Pure Appl. Chem., 72, (2000), 1563-1575.

658x + 97.74

7. Górecki, T.; Lynen, F.; Szucs, R.; Sandra, P “Universal Response in Liquid
Chromatography Using Charged Aerosol Detection” Anal. Chem., 78, (2006),
186-3192.
250

300

ours’ time, n=2.

350

*The Imtakt Presto FF-C18 column is a product from Imtakt USA (Portland, OR).
All trademarks are the property of Thermo Fisher Scientific and its subsidiaries.
This information is not intended to encourage use of these products in any manners that might infringe theintellectual property rights of others.
PO71561-EN 0315S

6 Determination of Polymerized Triglycerides by High Pressure Liquid Chromatography and Corona Veo Charged Aerosol Detector

26

five hours’ time, n=2.

non-volatile analytes arethod of analysis was, and TAGs) and the total
gure 6) were evaluated.
polymer peak ares study should be valid.

mass found (relative tolete range of percentof absolute error acrossusing an inverse gradient so that uniform response factors can be obtained for all
analytes. No inverse gradient was required for this method.

References
1. Newar, W.W. Lipids, Chapter 5 in “Food Chemistry,” 3rd Ed. By O.R. Fennema,
Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, pp. 225-319.
2. Berger, K.G. “The Practice of frying” PORIM Technology, 9, (1984), Palm Oil
Research Institute of Malaysia.
3. Teah, Y.K. “Improvements in the frying quality of vegetable shortenings and palm
olein,” Palm Oil Development, 8, (1988), 3-7.
4. Blumenthal, M. M. “A new look at the chemistry and physics of deep fat frying,”
Food Technology, 45, (1991), 68-71.
5. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/231556345_ShortTerm_in_Vivo_Digestibility_of_Triglyceride_Polymers_Dimers_and_Monomers_o
f_Thermoxidized_Palm_Olein_Used_in_Deep-Frying (accessed February 2015).
6. Dobarganes, M. C.; Velasco, J.; Dieffenbacher, A. “Determination of polar
compounds polymerized and oxidized triacylglycerols, and diacylglycerols in oils
and fats” Pure Appl. Chem., 72, (2000), 1563-1575.

+ 97.74

7. Górecki, T.; Lynen, F.; Szucs, R.; Sandra, P “Universal Response in Liquid
Chromatography Using Charged Aerosol Detection” Anal. Chem., 78, (2006),
186-3192.
250

300

350

’ time, n=2.

*The Imtakt Presto FF-C18 column is a product from Imtakt USA (Portland, OR).
All trademarks are the property of Thermo Fisher Scientific and its subsidiaries.
This information is not intended to encourage use of these products in any manners that might infringe theintellectual property rights of others.
PO71561-EN 0315S

www.thermoscientific.com/chromatography©2015 Thermo Fisher Scientifi c Inc. All rights reserved. ISO is a trademark of the International Standards Organization.
All other trademarks are the property of Thermo Fisher Scientifi c and its subsidiaries. This information is presented as an
example of the capabilities of Thermo Fisher Scientifi c products. It is not intended to encourage use of these products in any
manners that might infringe the intellectual property rights of others. Specifi cations, terms and pricing are subject to change.
Not all products are available in all countries. Please consult your local sales representative for details.

Africa +43 1 333 50 34 0
Australia +61 3 9757 4300
Austria +43 810 282 206
Belgium +32 53 73 42 41
Brazil +55 11 3731 5140
Canada +1 800 530 8447
China 800 810 5118 (free call domestic)
400 650 5118
PN71524-EN 0215S

Denmark +45 70 23 62 60
Europe-Other +43 1 333 50 34 0
Finland +358 9 3291 0200
France +33 1 60 92 48 00
Germany +49 6103 408 1014
India +91 22 6742 9494
Italy +39 02 950 591

Japan +81 6 6885 1213
Korea +82 2 3420 8600
Latin America +1 561 688 8700
Middle East +43 1 333 50 34 0
Netherlands +31 76 579 55 55
New Zealand +64 9 980 6700
Norway +46 8 556 468 00

Thermo Fisher Scientific,
Sunnyvale, CA USA is
ISO 9001 Certified.

Russia/CIS +43 1 333 50 34 0
Singapore +65 6289 1190
Sweden +46 8 556 468 00
Switzerland +41 61 716 77 00
Taiwan +886 2 8751 6655
UK/Ireland +44 1442 233555
USA +1 800 532 4752