Table 3. GC-MS quantitative analysis of the hydrolyzable constituents in cutin samples purified using cholinium hexanoate (2 h reaction) from wild-type and cus1 and gpat6 mutant ‘Micro-Tom’ tomato plants.

Results are given as % wt (n = 3). The identification yields (wt %) and the mass of the non-hydrolysable fraction (recalcitrance, %) are indicated below.

Compound Name	Compound Abundances
	wt	cus1	gpat6
	wt %
Fatty acids	0.50 ± 0.04	6.06 ± 0.81	5.60 ± 0.88
Hexadecanoic acid	0.27 ± 0.02	2.09 ± 0.26	1.59 ± 0.23
9,12-octadecadienoic	–	3.00 ± 0.59	2.22 ± 0.42
9-octadecenoic acid	0.24 ± 0.06	–	1.20 ± 0.16
Octadecanoic acid	–	0.96 ± 0.12	0.59 ± 0.11
Dicarboxylic acids	4.68 ± 0.32	7.23 ± 0.55	7.92 ± 0.5
Nonanedioic acida	–	1.75 ± 0.37	0.88 ± 0.05
Hexadecandioic acid	0.60 ± 0.10	–	1.95 ± 0.23
8/9-hydroxyhexadecanedioic acidb	4.08 ± 0.23	5.48 ± 0.24	5.09 ± 0.25
ω-Hydroxy acids	5.47 ± 0.30	1.19 ± 0.02	1.56 ± 0.08
16-Hydroxyhexadecanoic acid	3.97 ± 0.23	1.19 ± 0.02	1.12 ± 0.09
16-Hydroxy-10-oxohexadecanoic acid	0.71 ± 0.04	–	0.44 ± 0.02
9, 10-Epoxy-18-hydroxyoctadecanoic acid	0.25 ± 0.05	–	–
9, 10-Epoxy-18-hydroxyoctadecenoic acid	0.54 ± 0.02	–	–
Polyhydroxy acids	89.35 ± 0.63	85.33 ± 1.32	84.86 ± 1.46
Dihydroxyhexadecanoic acidc	87.91 ± 0.48	83.87 ± 1.52	77.71 ± 2.50
9,10,18-Trihydroxyoctadecanoic acid	0.62 ± 0.06	0.91 ± 0.18	3.84 ± 0.76
9,10,18-Trihydroxyoctadec-12-enoic acid	0.82 ± 0.09	0.54 ± 0.04	3.31 ± 0.49
Sterolsd	–	0.19 ± 0.04	–
Identification yield (%)	57.99 ± 1.26	37.49 ± 0.74	36.05 ± 1.75
Recalcitrance (%)	32.6 ± 3.68	44.26 ± 2.96	41.28 ± 0.97

^aThis compound was overestimated or overlapped with an unknown compound.

^bThis compound was associated with the possible presence of unspecific isomers.

^cThe major species of this compound was 10,16-diOH and minor species were 9,16- and 8,16-diOH.

^dThe identified sterol was stigmasterol.