# Comparative Analysis of Biochemical and Phytochemical Characteristics of 'Abhinav' and 'Anand Roma' Tomato Varieties and their Juice

Prakasha R, Hridyesh Pandey, Amruta Dandwate, Vinay G.M

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

► To cite this version:

Prakasha R, Hridyesh Pandey, Amruta Dandwate, Vinay G.M. Comparative Analysis of Biochemical and Phytochemical Characteristics of 'Abhinav' and 'Anand Roma' Tomato Varieties and their Juice. Archives of Current Research International, 2025, 25 (1), pp.20 - 26. 10.9734/acri/2025/v25i11033. hal-04885905

HAL Id: hal-04885905

https://hal.science/hal-04885905v1

Submitted on 14 Jan 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Comparative Analysis of Biochemical and Phytochemical Characteristics of 'Abhinav' and 'Anand Roma' Tomato Varieties and their Juice

Prakasha R a++*, Hridyesh Pandey b#, Amrut a Dandwate a++
and Vinay G.M a++

## Authors' contributions

This work was carried out in collaboration among all authors. Authors HP and PR conceptualized the study and designed the experiments. Authors AD and VGM contribution to experimental materials. Authors PR and AD executed the field/lab experiments and collected the data. Authors HP, PR and VGM analyzed and interpreted the data. Author HP, PR, AD and VGM prepared the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

## Article Information

DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/acri/2025/v25i11033

### Open Peer Review History:

This journal follows the Advanced Open Peer Review policy. Identity of the Reviewers, Editor(s) and additional Reviewers, peer review comments, different versions of the manuscript, comments of the editors, etc are available here: https://www.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/129528

### Original Research Article

Received: 05/11/2024

Accepted: 10/01/2025

Published: 13/01/2025

<footnote>a Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, India.</footnote>

<footnote>b Department of Food Processing Technology, College of Food Processing Technology and Bio Energy, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, India.</footnote>

<footnote>++ Research Scholar;</footnote>

<footnote># Associate Professor & Head;</footnote>

<footnote>*Corresponding author: Email: prakashgowdar017@gmail.com;</footnote>
ABSTRACT

Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) is the second most consumed vegetable globally, valued for its rich nutritional profile and diverse culinary applications. This study aimed to compare the biochemical and phytochemical characteristics of two popular tomato varieties, ‘Abhinav’ and ‘Anand Roma,’ to evaluate their suitability for dietary and processing purposes. Using standard analytical AOAC methods, °Brix, pH, total acidity, ascorbic acid, and lycopene content were assessed in both fresh tomatoes and their juices. The results showed that °Brix ranged from 4.68° to 4.81° in tomatoes and 4.77° to 5.09° in juices. pH values varied between 4.18 and 4.35, with total acidity ranging from 0.32% to 0.41% citric acid equivalents. Ascorbic acid content was 25.37 to 28.18 mg/100 g in tomatoes and 24.98 to 25.83 mg/100 g in juices, while lycopene levels ranged from 7.41 to 8.83 mg/100 g in tomatoes and 6.05 to 6.68 mg/100 g in juices. Significant differences (p<0.05) between the varieties were found in acidity, ash, ascorbic acid, and lycopene content. The findings emphasize the distinct nutritional attributes of these tomato varieties, providing insights into their optimal use for specific dietary needs and food processing applications.

Keywords: Tomato; Abhinav; Anand Roma; ascorbic acid; lycopene.

1. INTRODUCTION

Tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum) are widely
recognized as one of the most popular and
versatile vegetable consumed globally. It was
originated in the lower Andes region of South
America and were cultivated by the Aztecs in
Mexico, forming a remarkable history over
centuries (Bergougnoux, 2014). The tomato,
recognized as protective food, holds the
distinction of being the second largest vegetable
crop worldwide after the potato (Karniel et al.,
2020). The estimated area and production of
tomatoes in India was about 8,45,000 ha and
21.181 million metric tonnes respectively, in the
year 2021 and India is the second largest
producer in the world after China (FAO, 2023).

Tomatoes are commonly consumed raw in
salads, cooked as a vegetable, and used in
various dishes. Moreover, a significant portion of
the global tomato crop is processed to produce
products such as canned tomatoes, tomato juice,
ketchup, puree, sun-dried tomatoes or
dehydrated pulp (Meng et al., 2022). Tomatoes
are widely utilized for culinary purposes and are
highly regarded for their nutritional and health
benefits. They have a rich profile of vitamins,
minerals, fiber, protein, carotenoids, and
phytosterols (Ali et al., 2020). Among these
components, lycopene, beta-carotene, and
phenolic compounds stand out and have been
associated with numerous health-promoting
properties, such as antioxidant, anti-
inflammatory, and anticancer activities (Umara et
al., 2016). Additionally, these compounds play
vital roles in neutralizing harmful reactive oxygen
species, regulating enzymatic activities, and

inhibiting cellular damage and proliferation
(Devasagayam & Sainis, 2002). The chemical
composition of different varieties has a moisture
content ranging between 92.7 to 95.8%
(Abdullahi et al., 2016). The carbohydrate
content is ranged from 3.92 to 5 g, 0.59 to 1.06
g, 0.2 to 0.8 g lipid content, 0.7 to 2 g fiber of 100
g tomatoes (USDA, 2002). pH, TSS and titratable
acidity of tomato ranges from 3.7 to 4.4, 4.07 to
5.5 °Brix and 0.39 to 0.55 %, respectively
(Suárez et al., 2008). Tomato also contains
vitamins and phytochemicals especially vitamin
C and lycopene. It differs according to the
variety, cultivation type, processing methods. In
tomatoes, vitamin C is in the range of 7.65 to
59.4 mg/100 ml and lycopene is 5.02 to 11.11
mg/100 ml (Sánchez-Moreno et al., 2006; Ali et
al., 2020). The nutritional composition of
tomatoes can vary significantly depending on
factors such as variety, cultivation practice,
ripeness, and storage condition.

This study aims to conduct a comprehensive
nutritional and compositional analysis of two
distinct tomato varieties (‘Abhinav’ and ‘Anand
Roma’) commonly grown and consumed in
middle Gujarat region to assess the change in
the whole product and juice.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Mature, fresh ‘Anand Roma’ and ‘Abhinav’
variety of tomatoes were procured from the
Regional Research Station at Anand Agricultural
University, Anand, Gujarat. The tomatoes were
sorted, cleaned, and kept in the refrigerator (7±2
°C) for further processing and analysis. The
tomatoes were washed with potable water to remove extraneous matter and spray residues which were adhering to the outer surface. Tomato juice was extracted by using a screw type juice extractor, which separates seeds and peels from the tomato pulp. It was stored in a PET bottle at refrigerated condition (7±2 °C) for further analysis.

Total soluble solids were measured using a digital refractometer at 20 °C, and values are expressed in °Brix. pH was determined using a microprocessor based digital pH meter model-102 and total acidity was estimated by titration method as per Ranganna (1986). Moisture, protein, lipid, total fiber, ash content, and carbohydrate analysis was carried out using the standard method (AOAC, 2000). Lycopene content was estimated by using Systronics UV-Vis spectrophotometer 119 as per standard method (Ranganna, 1986) and ascorbic acid was estimated using 2, 6-dichlorophenol- indophenol by visual titration method (Ranganna, 1986).

The data for all the samples of 'Abhinav' and 'Anand Roma' tomato varieties and their juices were compared using independent t-tests. The F test was used to assess the equality of variances between the groups (ICAR-IIHR, 2023). A significance level of 0.05 was chosen for all tests. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS 21.

## 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The total acidity was found significantly (p = 0.05) higher in 'Abhinav' varieties as compared to the 'Anand Roma' variety. The mean values of

pH, TSS and total acidity are in line with the previously reported values in the range of 3.7 to 4.4, 4.07 to 5.5 °Brix and 0.39 to 0.55 %, respectively (Boulbiga et al., 2017; Suárez et al., 2008). The moisture content of 'Abhinav' and 'Anand Roma' varieties were respectively 95.31% and 95.19%, which is consistent with the findings of Suarez et al. (2008). The protein and fat content of tomatoes, were 0.61, 0.73 % and 0.17 and 0.21 %, respectively, for 'Abhinav' and 'Anand Roma' varieties and were not having significant difference. However, 'Abhinav' tomatoes contained 0.36 g of ash, while 'Anand Roma' tomatoes had 0.49 g which is similar to data reported in the literature (Oke et al., 2005; Suárez et al., 2008). The difference in ash content between the two varieties was highly significant (p = 0.01), with 'Anand Roma' showing a higher ash content. In fresh tomatoes, the 'Abhinav' variety exhibited a higher content of ascorbic acid (28.18 mg/100 g) compared to the 'Anand Roma' variety (25.37 mg/100 g), which is within the range of 7.65 to 59.4 mg/100 g (Sánchez-Moreno et al., 1986; Shuaibu, 2022). The vitamin C content in the two varieties of tomato juices were found highly significant (p = 0.05). In fresh tomatoes, the 'Abhinav' variety had a lower lycopene content (7.41 mg/100 g) compared to the Anand Roma variety (8.83 mg/100 g) which was statistically significant (p = 0.05), with Anand Roma tomato.

Processing of food results in a change or decrease in the nutritional and phytochemical compounds, those changes were evaluated for different biochemical characteristics of 'Abhinav' and Anand Roma varieties tomato juice as shown in Table 2.

<table><caption>Table 1. Comparison of physiochemical, proximate and phytochemical of Abhinav and Anand Roma variety tomatoes</caption><thead><tr><td>Parameters</td><td>Abhinav var.</td><td>Anand Roma var.</td><td>t-test value</td><td>Significance</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>pH</td><td>4.18</td><td>4.35</td><td>-1.13</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>TSS (°Brix)</td><td>4.68</td><td>4.81</td><td>-0.61</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Total acidity (% of citric acid)</td><td>0.41<sup>a</sup></td><td>0.32<sup>b</sup></td><td>4.13</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>Moisture (%)</td><td>95.31</td><td>95.19</td><td>0.89</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Protein (g)</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.73</td><td>-3.40</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Lipid (g)</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.21</td><td>-2.75</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Carbohydrate (g)</td><td>3.55</td><td>3.38</td><td>1.73</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Total fiber (g)</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.37</td><td>-1.40</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Ash (g)</td><td>0.36<sup>b</sup></td><td>0.49<sup>a</sup></td><td>-5.63</td><td>**</td></tr><tr><td>Ascorbic acid (mg/100 g)</td><td>28.18<sup>a</sup></td><td>25.37<sup>b</sup></td><td>6.01</td><td>**</td></tr><tr><td>Lycopene (mg/100 g)</td><td>7.41<sup>a</sup></td><td>8.83<sup>a</sup></td><td>-2.83</td><td>*</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Results were expressed as mean ± SD. The rank symbols (a to b) were assigned based on the t-test values and significance level at α = 0.05. "NS" indicates a not significant, *significant and ** highly significant difference between the two varieties for the respective parameter
<table><caption>Table 2. Comparison of Physiochemical, proximate and phytochemical of Abhinav and Anand Roma variety tomato juice</caption><thead><tr><th>Parameters</th><th>Abhinav var.</th><th>Anand Roma var.</th><th>t-test value</th><th>Significance</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>pH</td><td>4.17</td><td>4.31</td><td>-2.19</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>TSS (°Brix)</td><td>4.77<sup>b</sup></td><td>5.09<sup>a</sup></td><td>-3.73</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>Total acidity (% of citric acid)</td><td>0.43<sup>a</sup></td><td>0.35<sup>b</sup></td><td>2.99</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>Moisture (%)</td><td>95.23</td><td>94.92</td><td>2.70</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Crude protein (g)</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.71</td><td>-3.15</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Crude fat (g)</td><td>0.15<sup>b</sup></td><td>0.20<sup>a</sup></td><td>-4.84</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>Carbohydrate (g)</td><td>3.71</td><td>3.78</td><td>-0.32</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Crude fiber (g)</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.31</td><td>-2.37</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Ash (g)</td><td>0.33<sup>b</sup></td><td>0.41<sup>a</sup></td><td>-9.81</td><td>**</td></tr><tr><td>Ascorbic acid (mg/100 g)</td><td>25.83</td><td>24.98</td><td>1.37</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Lycopene (mg/100 g)</td><td>6.05<sup>b</sup></td><td>6.68<sup>a</sup></td><td>-2.91</td><td>*</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Results were expressed as mean. The rank symbols (a to b) were assigned based on the t-test values and significance level at α = 0.05. "NS" indicates a not significant, *significant and ** highly significant difference between the two varieties for the respective parameter.

<table><caption>Table 3. Paired sample t test for Abhinav variety tomato before and after processing into juice</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Pair</th><th rowspan="3">Parameters</th><th colspan="4">Paired Differences</th><th rowspan="3">t value</th><th rowspan="3">Sig. (2-tailed)</th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2">Mean</th><th rowspan="2">SD</th><th colspan="2">95% Confidence Interval of the Difference</th></tr><tr><th>Lower</th><th>Higher</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pair 1</td><td>pH BP - pH AP</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.27</td><td>-0.66</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.970<sup>NS</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Pair 2</td><td>TSS BP - TSS AP</td><td>-0.22</td><td>0.18</td><td>-0.66</td><td>0.21</td><td>-2.20</td><td>0.159<sup>NS</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Pair 3</td><td>Titratable acidity BP - Titratable acidity AP</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.08</td><td>-0.22</td><td>0.18</td><td>-0.43</td><td>0.707<sup>NS</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Pair 4</td><td>Moisture BP - Moisture AP</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.09</td><td>-0.13</td><td>0.29</td><td>1.56</td><td>0.259<sup>NS</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Pair 5</td><td>Protein BP - Protein AP</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.06</td><td>-0.13</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.464<sup>NS</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Pair 6</td><td>Fat BP - Fat AP</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.03</td><td>5.00</td><td>0.038*</td></tr><tr><td>Pair 7</td><td>Carbohydrate BP - Carbohydrate AP</td><td>-0.16</td><td>0.19</td><td>-0.63</td><td>0.31</td><td>-1.45</td><td>0.284<sup>NS</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Pair 8</td><td>Crude fibre BP - Crude fibre AP</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.05</td><td>10.00</td><td>0.010**</td></tr><tr><td>Pair 9</td><td>Ash BP - Ash AP</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.05</td><td>-0.08</td><td>0.15</td><td>1.22</td><td>0.346<sup>NS</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Pair 10</td><td>Ascorbic acid BP - Ascorbic acid AP</td><td>2.35</td><td>0.20</td><td>1.85</td><td>2.85</td><td>20.28</td><td>0.002**</td></tr><tr><td>Pair 11</td><td>Lycopene BP - Lycopene AP</td><td>1.36</td><td>0.60</td><td>-0.13</td><td>2.85</td><td>3.92</td><td>0.049*</td></tr></tbody></table>

(BP: Before processing; AP: After processing; SD: Standard deviation; Sig.: Significance; *Significant; ** Highly significant; NS Not significant)
<table><caption>Table 4. Paired sample t test for Anand Roma variety tomato before and after processing into juice</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Pair</th><th rowspan="3">Parameters</th><th colspan="4">Paired Differences</th><th rowspan="3">t value</th><th rowspan="3">Sig. (2-tailed)</th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2">Mean</th><th rowspan="2">SD</th><th colspan="2">95% Confidence Interval of the Difference</th></tr><tr><th>Lower</th><th>Higher</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pair 1</td><td>pH BP - pH AP</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.24</td><td>-0.54</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.32</td><td>0.78<sup>NS</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Pair 2</td><td>TSS BP - TSS AP</td><td>-0.11</td><td>0.15</td><td>-0.49</td><td>0.27</td><td>-1.20</td><td>0.35<sup>NS</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Pair 3</td><td>Titratable acidity BP - Titratable acidity AP</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.01</td><td>-0.05</td><td>-0.01</td><td>-3.20</td><td>0.14<sup>NS</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Pair 4</td><td>Moisture BP - Moisture AP</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.23</td><td>-0.29</td><td>0.86</td><td>2.16</td><td>0.16<sup>NS</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Pair 5</td><td>Protein BP - Protein AP</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.07</td><td>-0.16</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.63<sup>NS</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Pair 6</td><td>Fat BP - Fat AP</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.03</td><td>-0.06</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.70<sup>NS</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Pair 7</td><td>Carbohydrate BP - Carbohydrate AP</td><td>-0.40</td><td>0.41</td><td>-1.42</td><td>0.62</td><td>-1.70</td><td>0.23<sup>NS</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Pair 8</td><td>Crude fibre BP - Crude fibre AP</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.06</td><td>-0.09</td><td>0.21</td><td>1.80</td><td>0.21<sup>NS</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Pair 9</td><td>Ash BP - Ash AP</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.14</td><td>6.24</td><td>0.03*</td></tr><tr><td>Pair 10</td><td>Ascorbic acid BP - Ascorbic acid AP</td><td>0.40</td><td>1.22</td><td>-2.63</td><td>3.42</td><td>3.56</td><td>0.08<sup>NS</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Pair 11</td><td>Lycopene BP - Lycopene AP</td><td>2.15</td><td>0.99</td><td>-0.30</td><td>4.61</td><td>3.77</td><td>0.06<sup>NS</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

(BP: Before processing; AP: After processing; SD: Standard deviation; Sig.: Significance, *Significant; NS Not significant)
The TSS of Anand Roma was found higher
compared to ‘Abhinav’ variety tomato juice, so
the Anand Roma varieties juice might be suitable
for the preparation of juices that will meet the
FSSAI standards viz. TSS should be a minimum
5 °Brix. Whereas the ‘Abhinav’ varieties tomato
can be utilized for the preparation of tomato
crush, puree, paste, sauce, ketchup etc.
However, the paired t test between the ‘Abhinav’
variety tomato before and after processing into
juice shows not significant of TSS (Table 3). The
lipid, ash content in ‘Abhinav’ variety juice were
shown a significant difference between the
varieties.

The ascorbic acid content in 'Abhinav' and Anand Roma variety were 25.83 and 24.98 mg/100 g, respectively. The t test showed a not significant (p = 0.05) difference between these varieties of tomato juice. However, paired t test shows that the highly significant difference for 'Abhinav' variety, that is interesting to note that the ascorbic acid content decreased in the tomato juices compared to fresh tomatoes, similar decrease in ascorbic acid while juicing was reported by Adubofuor et al. (2010). This reduction could be attributed to the processing and storage of the juice, and while extracting juice, oxygen comes in to contact with the ascorbic acid which might change the ascorbic acid into dehydroascorbic acid, which might lead to a slight degradation of ascorbic acid in tomato juice (Mills et al., 1949; Koh et al., 2012). The lycopene content was 6.05 and 6.68 mg/100 g in 'Abhinav' and Anand Roma varieties tomato juice, the independent t-test showed a significant (p = 0.05) difference between the two variety and paired t test shows that the lycopene content was not changed even after processing (Tables 3 and 4).

A high amount of lipid, ash and lycopene content
and a similar range of other characteristics as
'Abhinav' was depicting that the Anand Roma
varieties was having comparatively good
nutritional value as compared to 'Abhinav'
varieties tomato juice. The Anand Roma varieties
tomato juice also has a high amount of total
soluble solids that might be useful for
industrialists look the varieties for
particularly juicing purposes and whereas
'Abhinav' varieties had a comparatively higher
amount of ascorbic acid. These findings could be
valuable for consumers and processors looking
to incorporate specific nutrients, such as ascorbic

acid or lycopene, into their processed food
products such as juices, purees, ketchup etc.

4. CONCLUSION

The comparison between the ‘Abhinav’ and Anand Roma tomato varieties observed notable distinction in the total soluble solids, acidity, ash and phytochemical contents, where Anand Roma exhibited significantly higher levels compared to Abhinav in both fresh tomatoes and their respective juices except in ascorbic acid where Abhinav varieties had slightly higher amounts than ‘Anand Roma’. The high levels of TSS, lycopene and ascorbic acid is useful for making good quality tomato based processed products such as canned tomatoes, juices, purees, ketchup, sauce and other tomato based products.

DISCLAIMER (ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE)

Author(s) hereby declare that NO generative AI
technologies such as Large Language Models
(ChatGPT, COPILOT, etc) and text-to-image
generators have been used during writing or
editing of this manuscript.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We acknowledge the vegetable research station
for providing the tomato varieties for conducting
research.

COMPETING INTERESTS

Authors have declared that no competing
interests exist.

REFERENCES

A.O.A.C. Association of Analytical Chemists. (2000). Official Methods of Analysis of A.O.A.C. International, 18th ed. A.O.A.C. International: Gaithersburg, MD, USA.

Abdullahi, I.I. Abdullahi, N. Abdu, A.M. and Ibrahim, A.S. (2016). Proximate, mineral and vitamin analysis of fresh and canned tomato. *Biosciences Biotechnol. Res. Asia*, *13*, 1163-1169.

Adubofuor, J. Amankwah, E.A. Arthur, B.S. and Appiah, F. (2010). Comparative study related to physico-chemical properties and sensory qualities of tomato juice and cocktail juice produced from oranges,
tomatoes and carrots. *African J. of Fd. Sci.*, 4, 427-433.

Ali, M.Y. Sina, A.A. Khandker, S.S. Neesa, L. Tanvir, E.M. Kabir, A.... and Gan, S.H. (2020). Nutritional composition and bioactive compounds in tomatoes and their impact on human health and disease: A review. *Foods*, *10*, 45.

Bergougnoux, V. (2014). The history of tomato: from domestication to biopharming. *Biotechnol. Adv.*, 32, 170-189.

Devasagayam, T.P.A. and Sainis, K.B. (2002). Immune system and antioxidants, especially those derived from Indian medicinal plants. *Indian J. of Experimental Biol.*, 40, 639-655.

Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations. (2023). *Crops and Livestock Products*. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL.

Indian Institute of Horticultural Research. (2023). Tomato. *ICAR-IIHR*, Bengaluru. Retrieved from https://iihr.res.in/varieties-crop-name/tomato

Karniel, U. Koch, A. Zamir, D. and Hirschberg, J. (2020). Development of zeaxanthin-rich tomato fruit through genetic manipulations of carotenoid biosynthesis. *Plant Biotechnol. J.*, 18, 2292-2303.

Koh, E. Charoenprasert, S. and Mitchell, A.E. (2012). Effects of industrial tomato paste processing on ascorbic acid, flavonoids and carotenoids and their stability over one-year storage. *J. of the Sci. of Fd. and Agri.*, 92, 23-28

Meng, F. Li, Y. Li, S. Chen, H. Shao, Z. Jian, Y. ... and Wang, Q. (2022). Carotenoid biofortification in tomato products along whole agro-food chain from field to fork. *Trends in Fd. Sci. & Technol.*, 124, 296-308.

Mills, M.B. Damron, C.M. and Roe, J.H. (1949). Ascorbic acid, dehydroascorbic acid, and diketogulonic acid in fresh and processed foods. *Analytical Chemistry*, 21, 707-709.

Oboulbiga, E.B. Parkouda, C. Sawadogo-Lingani, H. Compaoré, E.W. Sakira, A.K.

and Traoré, A.S. (2017). Nutritional composition, physical characteristics and sanitary quality of the tomato variety Mongol F1 from Burkina Faso. *Fd. and Nutr. Sci.*, 8, 444.

Oke, M. Ahn, T. Schofield, A. and Paliyath, G. (2005). Effects of phosphorus fertilizer supplementation on processing quality and functional food ingredients in tomato. *J. of Agri. and Fd. Chemistry*, 53, 1531-1538.

Ranganna, S. (1986). *Handbook of analysis and quality control for fruit and vegetable products*. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

Sánchez-Moreno, C. Plaza, L. De Ancos, B. and Cano, M.P. (2006). Nutritional characterisation of commercial traditional pasteurised tomato juices: carotenoids, vitamin C and radical-scavenging capacity. *Fd. Chemistry*, 98, 749-756.

Shuaibu, (2022). "Comparative Analysis on Nutritional and Anti Nutritional Composition of Fresh and Dried Tomatoes (Lycopersicom Esculentum, Solanum Lycoperiscum) Obtained from Gusau Central Market Zamfara State, Nigeria". Asian J. of Applied Chemistry Research 12 (3):8-14.

Suárez, M.H. Rodríguez, E.R. and Romero, C.D. (2008). Chemical composition of tomato (*Lycopersicon esculentum*) from Tenerife, the Canary Islands. *Fd. Chemistry*, 106, 1046-1056.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2016). Tomatoes, red, ripe, raw, year-round average. U.S. Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/170457/nutrients

Umar, M., Zubairu, A., Hamisu, H. S., Mohammed, I. B., Oko, J. O., Abdulkarim, I. M., ... & Aliko, A. A. (2016). Evaluation of phytochemical and in vitro antimicrobial effects of Solanum lycopersicum Linn. (Tomato) on oral thrush and human cariogenic pathogens. Journal of Advances in Medical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 11(4), 1-9.

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of the publisher and/or the editor(s). This publisher and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© Copyright (2025): Author(s). The licensee is the journal publisher. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
https://www.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/129528