[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":62},["ShallowReactive",2],{"blog-pcb-cross-section-analysis-en":3},{"title":4,"description":5,"date":6,"lastUpdated":6,"category":7,"image":8,"readingTime":9,"wordCount":10,"timeRequired":11,"htmlContent":12,"faq":13,"tags":29,"slug":35,"sourceLocale":36,"availableLocales":37,"jsonld":38},"How to Read a PCB Microsection Report: Evidence and Decisions","Read a PCB microsection report by checking sample traceability, section quality, measured features and acceptance criteria before releasing a lot.","2026-11-09","testing","/assets/blogs/pcb-cross-section-analysis/microsection-reading-guide.webp",12,2364,"PT12M","\u003Cp>A PCB microsection report is useful only when its images and measurements can be connected to a specific specimen, a representative feature and the acceptance requirements for that order. A polished cross-section can expose hole-wall copper, inner-layer connections and surrounding laminate in the selected plane. It does not, by itself, establish that every board in the lot is acceptable.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>Start with identity and preparation, then compare each reported feature with its applicable requirement. Finally, reconcile any disagreement between the individual results and the cover-sheet disposition. For choosing and locating test structures, see the \u003Ca href=\"/en/blog/pcb-test-coupons/\">PCB test coupon guide\u003C/a>; for the broader inspection toolkit, see \u003Ca href=\"/en/blog/pcb-inspection/\">PCB inspection methods\u003C/a>. This article focuses on interpreting the destructive section and deciding what evidence is still missing.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cimg src=\"/assets/blogs/pcb-cross-section-analysis/microsection-reading-guide.webp\" alt=\"Conceptual plated through-hole cutaway marking barrel copper, inner-layer interfaces, laminate and surface transition; not a micrograph\">\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cem>Conceptual illustration, not a microscope image or a measured specimen. Geometry is not to scale and does not depict actual defects.\u003C/em>\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Ca href=\"/assets/blogs/pcb-cross-section-analysis/microsection-reading-guide.webp\">View the full-size illustration\u003C/a>\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch2>1. Establish What the Report Actually Represents\u003C/h2>\n\u003Ctable>\n\u003Cthead>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Cth>Check\u003C/th>\n\u003Cth>Evidence to request\u003C/th>\n\u003Cth>Why it changes the decision\u003C/th>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003C/thead>\n\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Identity\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Part and drawing revision, lot, panel, specimen ID and coupon or board location\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>A report without a reliable link to the shipment cannot support its disposition.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Feature\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Hole ID, type, layer span, intended drill size and finished-size definition\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>A large through-hole does not establish the condition of a small blind via or another lamination cycle.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Sampling\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Number of panels, specimens and holes; panel positions; selection rule\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>A few inspected planes may support a defined sampling decision, not a claim about every hole.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Condition\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>As-fabricated or stressed; prior handling and the specified conditioning method, revision and actual exposure\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>A stressed specimen answers a different question from an unstressed one.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Preparation\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Section orientation, evidence of an appropriate plane, as-polished and, where useful, etched images\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Off-center grinding, scratches, relief or over-etching can distort a measurement or obscure an interface.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Acceptance basis\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Drawing, purchase requirements, product standard and revision, class, addenda and approved deviations\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>The relevant limit depends on the feature, construction and governing documents.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003C/tbody>\u003C/table>\n\u003Cp>Ask how the coupon's drill, layer span, materials and process history match the product. The smallest hole and the greatest depth-to-drill ratio are useful candidates, but they are not automatically the worst cases for every manufacturing step. A board with through-holes, buried vias and stacked microvias may need different specimens or section planes. An actual failed board may be the appropriate target when the question is specific to that location.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>The IPC's public \u003Ca href=\"https://www.electronics.org/sites/default/files/test_methods_docs/2-1-01f.pdf\">IPC-TM-650 2.1.1, revision F\u003C/a> describes microsection preparation and notes that stacked structures may not all meet the center-plane tolerance simultaneously. Ask the laboratory how it verified the relevant plane for each target; seeing two walls alone does not prove centering. Check the method and revision required by the order rather than assuming this particular revision governs every build.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>If the report is missing, cannot be linked to the shipment, or covers a different hole family than the order requires, treat that as an \u003Cstrong>evidence gap\u003C/strong>, not proof that the boards failed. Hold the affected release when the required evidence is unavailable and ask the supplier for traceable records or an agreed, representative additional sample. Conversely, an identified out-of-limit result is not erased by a later passing section: preserve both results and use the agreed nonconformance process.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch2>2. Map Each Finding to the Right Evidence\u003C/h2>\n\u003Ctable>\n\u003Cthead>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Cth>Feature\u003C/th>\n\u003Cth>What to locate on the section\u003C/th>\n\u003Cth>What to request before accepting or rejecting\u003C/th>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003C/thead>\n\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Hole-wall copper\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Both barrel walls, knees and the specified measurement positions\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Measured locations, measurement definition, scale and applicable minimum or average criteria for that construction.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Inner-layer connection\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Each relevant land-to-barrel interface\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Layer and wall identification, as-polished image, preparation quality and applicable separation or smear criterion.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Voids or discontinuities\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Location and extent in plating or at an interface\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Whether the indication is a void, separation or preparation damage; its dimensions and the relevant criterion.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Cracks\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Barrel, knee, foil or interface, as applicable\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>An image identifying the suspected crack and its extent, stress history and acceptance rule.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Wrap or cap\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Surface-to-barrel transition on the specified hole construction\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Distinguish wrap plating from total surface copper and verify the applicable geometry and criterion.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Etchback and smear\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Relationship between inner land, dielectric and plating\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Feature-specific measurements and whether positive etchback was actually specified; distinguish etchback from desmear.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Annular ring\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Remaining land at the inspected section plane\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Layer, wall and local measurement; a section alone does not map the whole circumference. See \u003Ca href=\"/en/blog/pcb-annular-ring-design/\">annular ring design\u003C/a>.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Laminate condition\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Voids, recession, cracks or separations near the target\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Location, dimensions, specimen condition and applicable limit; do not treat every dark region as the same defect.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Dielectric and foil\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Specific layer and local measured thickness\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Drawing or approved stackup tolerance, measurement location and whether the view is representative.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003C/tbody>\u003C/table>\n\u003Cp>Record both average and local measurements when required, but do not assume a laboratory's reported "minimum" is the absolute minimum over the entire hole. Ask which walls and positions were examined and how the average was calculated. A reading of total surface copper is not automatically a reading of barrel plating or wrap thickness.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Do not use a class label as a substitute for the acceptance document.\u003C/strong> IPC-6012 addresses rigid-board qualification and performance; the contract may also invoke other documents or requirements. The \u003Ca href=\"https://www.electronics.org/ipc-document-revision-table\">IPC public revision table\u003C/a> lists IPC-6012 Revision F, dated September 2023. That publication record does not establish which revision applies to an order. Limits, measurement definitions and applicability must be checked against the actual ordered revision, addenda, construction and any approved deviations. The preparation method is not itself a universal table of pass/fail limits. If the controlled acceptance text is unavailable, request the applicable criterion and its source from the responsible quality authority before disposition.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>Keep the documents' roles separate: the preparation method describes how the specimen is prepared; the applicable measurement method describes how the feature is measured; the product specification and drawing provide the acceptance basis. Verify the invoked documents and revisions for the order rather than treating a preparation method as an acceptance limit.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch2>3. Investigate the Indication Without Losing Evidence\u003C/h2>\n\u003Cp>An image is an observation, not a root-cause analysis. Retain the original image, specimen identity and report before additional grinding or etching changes the surface. Record whether the observation was present as-polished and how it changed after etching; IPC-TM-650 2.1.1F recommends documenting relevant separation indications before etching. Additional preparation or another specimen can help investigate an artifact, but a clean neighboring hole does not erase a confirmed defect in the original.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ctable>\n\u003Cthead>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Cth>Observation\u003C/th>\n\u003Cth>Plausible explanations, not a diagnosis\u003C/th>\n\u003Cth>Next evidence or action\u003C/th>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003C/thead>\n\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Local thin barrel copper\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Plating distribution, hole geometry or measurement/sectioning error\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Ask for marked measurement points, plane verification and process records; compare similarly processed features.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Dark line at an inner land\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Separation, residual material or preparation artifact\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Preserve as-polished and etched views; request a metallurgist's assessment and the relevant criterion.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Suspected crack at a knee or barrel\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Stress-related damage or a scratch/preparation artifact\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Preserve the original image and conditioning history; investigate the indication without assuming the cause.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Recessed resin or laminate separation\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Manufacturing, conditioning or preparation effects\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Record location and extent, compare the specimen condition with the order and examine other relevant evidence.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Low local annular ring\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Registration, drill position or section-plane effects\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Compare hole and layer data with the drawing; review pad size and registration with the fabricator.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003C/tbody>\u003C/table>\n\u003Cp>For a suspect indication, quality should place the potentially affected material on hold according to the organization's procedure, preserve remaining samples and establish the affected lot or panel scope. Agree the investigation and any additional sections \u003Cstrong>before\u003C/strong> consuming the last representative specimen. Additional samples can help define scope; they do not automatically invalidate the original result or override the agreed sampling and disposition rules.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch2>4. Worked Example: An Accept Cover Sheet With a Conflicting Row\u003C/h2>\n\u003Cp>This example is invented to demonstrate report review, not an IPC limit or a real customer result. Assume the purchase documents for a particular construction explicitly require a \u003Cstrong>local hole-wall copper minimum of 20 µm\u003C/strong>, with the measurement method and positions defined in the order. The report identifies a 10-layer, 1.6 mm board and a 0.25 mm finished-hole via. The section is from coupon C03 on panel P02; the specimen was stressed under the separately agreed procedure.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ctable>\n\u003Cthead>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Cth>Report entry\u003C/th>\n\u003Cth>Review\u003C/th>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003C/thead>\n\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Local wall reading: 19 µm\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>\u003Cstrong>1 µm below the example requirement\u003C/strong>; the reported value conflicts with the cover-sheet acceptance.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Reported average: 27 µm\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Does not cancel a separate local minimum. Confirm which readings form the average.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Image of measured point\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Request the unaltered image, scale, marked location and evidence that the target plane and preparation were adequate.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Other interfaces: "no separation observed"\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Useful for the inspected interfaces, but not proof that all holes or layers elsewhere are free of separation.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>Cover sheet: "Accept"\u003C/td>\n\u003Ctd>Hold disposition pending reconciliation of the specific row, criterion, measurement and any approved deviation.\u003C/td>\n\u003C/tr>\n\u003C/tbody>\u003C/table>\n\u003Cp>The difference is \u003Cspan class=\"math-inline\">19 - 20 = -1 μm\u003C/span>, or \u003Cstrong>5% below this hypothetical limit\u003C/strong>. Before treating the discrepancy as a confirmed nonconformance, the quality team checks the actual order wording, construction, units, recorded value, measurement uncertainty and applicable decision rule with the lab. Do not invent an uncertainty allowance or round a value into compliance. If the result is confirmed outside the requirement, handle it under the agreed nonconformance process; a waiver, if permitted, belongs to the authorized customer/design authority, not an individual inspector.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>For a future design review, compare the \u003Cstrong>drilled\u003C/strong> hole diameter and the relevant plated depth when discussing aspect ratio with the fabricator. The finished diameter in this example cannot be substituted for the drill diameter to claim a process aspect ratio. Changing hole size or board thickness also requires electrical, mechanical and manufacturing review; it is not a remedy for material already built.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch2>5. What a Passing Section Does Not Prove\u003C/h2>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Whole-lot quality:\u003C/strong> The image covers a selected plane in selected material. Lot-level inference depends on the agreed sampling plan and representativeness.\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Service life:\u003C/strong> A single section, even after a specified stress, is not a lifetime prediction. Select thermal cycling, electrical monitoring or other qualification tests for the actual risk.\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Full three-dimensional condition:\u003C/strong> A crack or void outside the viewing plane can be missed. Other orientations, additional sections or complementary inspection may be needed.\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Electrical function or material chemistry:\u003C/strong> A section does not replace netlist testing, functional tests, chemical analysis or a dedicated surface-finish investigation, such as an investigation of ENIG black pad. For broader finish context, see the \u003Ca href=\"/en/blog/pcb-surface-finish-comparison/\">PCB surface finish comparison\u003C/a>.\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Cause:\u003C/strong> A visible separation does not on its own establish whether drilling, desmear, plating, handling, stress or specimen preparation caused it.\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ul>\n\u003Cp>Thermal stress is not a generic synonym for assembly reflow. Specify the applicable test method, revision, conditioning, temperatures, duration, number of exposures and sequence in the order. A sample passing one agreed stress condition does not demonstrate equivalence to every assembly profile or field environment.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch2>6. RFQ and Release Handoff\u003C/h2>\n\u003Cp>Before fabrication, the \u003Cstrong>designer\u003C/strong> identifies critical hole families, layer spans, stackup, failure risks and any customer-specific requirements. The \u003Cstrong>fabricator and laboratory\u003C/strong> propose representative specimens, preparation, inspection locations and report format. The \u003Cstrong>purchaser and quality authority\u003C/strong> agree the governing documents, sampling, deliverables and disposition path in the quotation and purchase order.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cp>Request a report containing:\u003C/p>\n\u003Col>\n\u003Cli>Part/drawing revision, lot and panel IDs, coupon or board location, specimen and hole IDs, plus traceability to the shipment.\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>Hole construction, intended drill and relevant layer span; the connection between the test feature and the production feature.\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>Number and location of samples, selection rationale, and any untested hole families or exceptions.\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>Preparation and conditioning method and revision, actual stress history, section orientation and evidence of appropriate section-plane quality.\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>Images with scale, specimen, feature and layer identification; as-polished and etched views where needed, with measurement locations marked.\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>Measured values and units, measurement definitions, applicable criteria and revision, stated uncertainty or decision rule where required, and the disposition for each relevant finding.\u003C/li>\n\u003Cli>Retention and ownership of original images and mounted specimens, response to discrepancies, further sampling and named authority for any concession.\u003C/li>\n\u003C/ol>\n\u003Cp>The \u003Ca href=\"/en/products/fr4-pcb/\">FR-4 PCB\u003C/a> offering lists microsection or inspection records when quoted. Include the fabrication drawing, stackup, drill data, sampling plan and required report in a \u003Ca href=\"/en/quote/\">quote request\u003C/a>, and agree the actual scope before placing the order. For the broader class decision, see \u003Ca href=\"/en/blog/ipc-class-1-2-3/\">IPC Class 1, 2 and 3\u003C/a>.\u003C/p>\n\u003Cdiv data-component=\"BlogQuickQuoteInline\">\u003C/div>\n\n\u003C!-- faq:start -->\n\u003Ch2>Frequently Asked Questions\u003C/h2>\n\u003Ch3>What does a PCB microsection show?\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>A prepared section can reveal copper, interfaces and laminate at the selected plane, including local plating thickness and visible discontinuities. Its usefulness depends on the selected feature, preparation and image quality.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>What is the minimum hole copper for IPC Class 3?\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>Do not infer one universal number from the class label alone. Check the applicable performance specification and revision, board construction, feature, measurement definition and any contract requirements or approved deviations.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>Should every section be thermally stressed?\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>No. Use the as-fabricated or stressed condition required by the acceptance or investigation plan. Record the actual method, revision and exposure so the result can be interpreted in context.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>Can a microsection be misleading?\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>Yes. Off-center preparation, scratches, relief, over-etching and incomplete sampling can obscure or imitate an indication. Preserve the original evidence and have the laboratory investigate before changing the specimen.\u003C/p>\n\u003Ch3>Does a passing coupon release the entire lot?\u003C/h3>\n\u003Cp>Not automatically. Its relevance depends on the features represented, process history, sample selection, acceptance criteria and the agreed lot-disposition procedure.\u003C/p>\n\u003C!-- faq:end -->\n\u003Csection class=\"related-links\" aria-label=\"Related\">\u003Ch3>Related links\u003C/h3>\u003Cul>\u003Cli>\u003Ca href=\"/en/blog/pcb-test-coupons/\">PCB Test Coupons: What to Specify and Which Reports to Request\u003C/a>\u003C/li>\u003Cli>\u003Ca href=\"/en/blog/pcb-inspection/\">PCB Inspection Services: AOI, X-Ray, and Quality Control Solutions\u003C/a>\u003C/li>\u003Cli>\u003Ca href=\"/en/blog/pcb-annular-ring-design/\">PCB Annular Ring: Pad Size, Drill Reference and Breakout Checks\u003C/a>\u003C/li>\u003Cli>\u003Ca href=\"/en/blog/pcb-surface-finish-comparison/\">PCB Surface Finish Comparison: HASL, OSP, ENIG, Immersion Silver, and Immersion Tin in Mass Production\u003C/a>\u003C/li>\u003Cli>\u003Ca href=\"/en/products/fr4-pcb/\">FR-4 PCB\u003C/a>\u003C/li>\u003Cli>\u003Ca href=\"/en/quote/\">quote request\u003C/a>\u003C/li>\u003Cli>\u003Ca href=\"/en/blog/ipc-class-1-2-3/\">IPC Class 1 vs Class 2 vs Class 3: Fabrication Criteria, Microsection Limits, and BOM Cost Impact\u003C/a>\u003C/li>\u003C/ul>\u003C/section>",[14,17,20,23,26],{"question":15,"answer":16,"answerText":16},"What does a PCB microsection show?","A prepared section can reveal copper, interfaces and laminate at the selected plane, including local plating thickness and visible discontinuities. Its usefulness depends on the selected feature, preparation and image quality.",{"question":18,"answer":19,"answerText":19},"What is the minimum hole copper for IPC Class 3?","Do not infer one universal number from the class label alone. Check the applicable performance specification and revision, board construction, feature, measurement definition and any contract requirements or approved deviations.",{"question":21,"answer":22,"answerText":22},"Should every section be thermally stressed?","No. Use the as-fabricated or stressed condition required by the acceptance or investigation plan. Record the actual method, revision and exposure so the result can be interpreted in context.",{"question":24,"answer":25,"answerText":25},"Can a microsection be misleading?","Yes. Off-center preparation, scratches, relief, over-etching and incomplete sampling can obscure or imitate an indication. Preserve the original evidence and have the laboratory investigate before changing the specimen.",{"question":27,"answer":28,"answerText":28},"Does a passing coupon release the entire lot?","Not automatically. Its relevance depends on the features represented, process history, sample selection, acceptance criteria and the agreed lot-disposition procedure.",[30,31,32,33,34],"PCB microsection","cross-section analysis","IPC-6012","plated through hole inspection","microsection report","pcb-cross-section-analysis","en",[36],{"blog":39,"breadcrumb":48},{"@context":40,"@type":41,"headline":4,"description":5,"image":8,"url":42,"datePublished":6,"dateModified":6,"timeRequired":11,"keywords":43,"articleSection":7,"author":44,"publisher":47},"https://schema.org","BlogPosting","https://hilpcb.com/en/blog/pcb-cross-section-analysis/","PCB microsection, cross-section analysis, IPC-6012, plated through hole inspection, microsection report",{"@type":45,"name":46},"Organization","HILPCB",{"@type":45,"name":46},{"@context":40,"@type":49,"itemListElement":50},"BreadcrumbList",[51,56,60],{"@type":52,"position":53,"name":54,"item":55},"ListItem",1,"Home","https://hilpcb.com/",{"@type":52,"position":57,"name":58,"item":59},2,"Blog","https://hilpcb.com/en/blog/",{"@type":52,"position":61,"name":35,"item":42},3,1794483750431]