• Top library match: (3,4,5,6-tetrahydroxyoxan-2-yl)methyl dihydrogen phosphate #21185

• The weak band at 660 cm⁻¹ has been attributed to a Ti–O–Ti bond [2] in the direct evidence, which is incompatible with the proposed organic material and is likely an erroneous assignment from an unrelated literature source.
• A peak at 993 cm⁻¹ is assigned to a C–S single bond [7], a functional group not expected in a sugar phosphate or typical aromatic/carbohydrate composition; its origin remains unexplained.
• The library candidate is a simple sugar phosphate, but the sample’s aromatic C=C vibrations and aliphatic C–H bending patterns are not fully accounted for by that structure, indicating the presence of additional aromatic and aliphatic components.
• The exact identity of the sample cannot be determined from FTIR alone; the spectrum may represent a mixture of an aromatic compound with a carbohydrate or a functionalized sugar derivative.
• The assignment of the phosphate band at 1100 cm⁻¹ is supported by only one literature source and could alternatively be interpreted as another C–O stretching mode.
• The band at 993 cm⁻¹ remains ambiguous and could indicate sulfur-containing impurities or a misassignment.

Recommended next steps: Confirm the presence of aromatic and carbohydrate moieties by 1D/2D NMR spectroscopy or mass spectrometry. Perform a phosphomolybdate assay or ICP-OES to verify phosphorus content. Compare the spectrum with reference samples of phosphorylated sugars or lignocellulosic phosphates to narrow the identification. If possible, use chromatographic separation or derivatization to isolate individual components for further IR analysis.