Table 1.
Comparison of the performance of different analytical methods in the quantification of BTL.
| Analytical Method | Tools | Matrix | LOD/nmol L−1 | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chromatographic | HPLC-UV with SPME a | Surface water | 0.2 | [38] |
| Chromatographic | HPLC-UV-ESI/MS b | Tobacco leaf powder | 508 | [39] |
| Immunochromatographic | Gold-based strip sensor | Phosphate buffer saline (pH 7.4) | 10.4 | [20] |
| Electrochemical | Co-Ag BMNPs-PVP/GCE c | B–R buffer (pH 2.0) | 32.0 | [17] |
| Electrochemical | Dropping mercury electrode | B–R buffer (pH 4.0) | 60.0 | [22] |
| Electrochemical | PBA-qnz/CPE | B–R buffer (pH 2.0) | 170 | This study |
a HPLC-UV with SPME—High-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection with solid phase microextraction fiber coating based on silicone sealant/hollow ZnO@CeO2 composite; b HPLC-UV-ESI/MS—High-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection and electrospray ionization mass spectrometry; c Co-Ag BMNPs-PVP/GCE—Glassy carbon electrode modified with Co and Ag bimetallic nanoparticles immobilized in poly(vinylpyrrolidone).