Table 4 Comparison between published chromatographic analysis methods and HPLC‒MS/MS methods for plant hormones
Analytes | Plant matrix | Analytical technique | Recovery /% | Linearity | Running analysis time /min | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IAA, GAs, tZ,ABA | A. thaliana | LC–ESI-IT-MS/MS | 70.0–100.0 | 5–1 000 fmol | 30 | (Izumi et al., 2009) |
IAA, ABA, JA, SA, IBA,GAs | Rice leaves | CE-ESI-TOF–MS | 84.6–112.2 | 1.3–850 ng·mL−1 | 25 | (Chen et al., 2011) |
ABA, IAA, IBA, GAs, SA | Green seaweeds | HPLC-ESI-QTOF-MS | 80.0–92.0 | 0.2–100 mg·mL−1 | 7 | (Gupta et al., 2011) |
tZ, K, KR | Tobacco | UHPLC-MS/MS | 68.8–103.0 | 0.005–20 ng·mL−1 | 17 | (Du et al., 2015) |
BRs | Brassica napus | UHPLC-MS/MS | 30.9–88.9 | 0.01–10.00 pmol | 9 | (Oklestkova et al., 2017) |
JA, ABA, SA, BA, GAS | Hamlin trees leave | LC–ESI–MS/MS | 34.6–50.3 | 0.1–100 ng·mL−1 | 12 | (Suh et al., 2018) |