## 3 Results and Discussion
### Phytochemical Profiles and Antioxidant Activity of Dried Tree Tomato  
In this study, two types of drying methods, freeze drying and microwaves (at 350 W, 500 W, 650 W), were used and the effects of the drying methods on the antioxidant properties was assessed. The freeze drying preserved more TPC and total carotenoids (TCC) than other tested drying methods with 3.94 \(\pm\) 0.26 mg GAE/g and 0.48 \(\pm\) 0.04 \(\mu\)g/g, respectively (Table 6). This amount is significantly higher (\(p<0.05\)) than that of other tested drying methods. This study also revealed that the higher microwaves' drying power preserved more TPC and TFC than the lower power. The tree tomatoes dried in microwaves at 650 W had significantly (\(p<0.05\)) higher TPC and TFC than other tested drying powers (Table 6). Those results are supported by the study of [PERSON] et al. [71], which the increase of TPC with the increase of microwaves power. The freeze-drying method well-preserved the  
Figure 4: Rehydration curve of microwaves dried and freeze-dried tree tomato fruit. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Methods** & **Models** & **SSE** & **R2** & **RMSE** & **X2** & **Model Constants** \\ \hline MW 350 & [PERSON] & 0.06 & 0.99 & 0.11 & 0.01 & a = 5.9582 b = 0.37274 \\  & First order kinetic & 0.05 & 0.99 & 0.09 & 0.01 & a = 0.057467 \\  & Exponential related equation & 0.05 & 0.99 & 0.09 & 0.01 & a = 0.057466 \\  & Exponential model & 0.04 & 0.99 & 0.09 & 0.01 & a = 0.041472, k = 1.1014 \\  & Weibull & 0.04 & 0.99 & 0.09 & 0.01 & a = 1.1019, b = 17.9891 \\  & proposed model & 0.05 & 0.99 & 0.11 & 0.01 & a = 2.438, b = 19.0225, k = 1.204 \\ \hline MW 500 & Peleg & 0.03 & 0.98 & 0.07 & 0.00 & a = 10.1066, b = 0.62977 \\  & First order kinetic & 0.01 & 0.99 & 0.04 & 0.00 & a = 0.052314 \\  & Exponential related equation & 0.01 & 0.99 & 0.04 & 0.00 & a = 0.052315 \\  & Exponential model & 0.01 & 0.99 & 0.04 & 0.00 & a = 0.028411, k = 1.1927 \\  & Weibull & 0.01 & 0.99 & 0.04 & 0.00 & a = 1.1934, b = 19.7981 \\  & proposed model & 0.00 & 1.00 & 0.02 & 0.00 & a = 1.3466, b = 168.7216, k = 1.9786 \\ \hline MW 650 & Peleg & 0.01 & 1.00 & 0.03 & 0.00 & a = 2.4679, b = 0.44546 \\  & First order kinetic & 0.02 & 1.00 & 0.05 & 0.00 & a = 0.092312 \\  & Exponential related equation & 0.02 & 1.00 & 0.05 & 0.00 & a = 0.092313 \\  & Exponential model & 0.01 & 1.00 & 0.03 & 0.00 & a = 0.21323, k = 0.71353 \\  & Weibull & 0.01 & 1.00 & 0.03 & 0.00 & a = 0.71379, b = 8.7242 \\  & proposed model & 0.01 & 1.00 & 0.03 & 0.00 & a = 2.1926, b = 7.598, k = 1.1675 \\ \hline FD & Peleg & 0.01 & 1.00 & 0.04 & 0.00 & a = 0.13338, b = 0.32209 \\  & First order kinetic & 0.01 & 1.00 & 0.06 & 0.00 & a = 1.491 \\  & Exponential related equation & 0.01 & 1.00 & 0.06 & 0.00 & a = 1.491 \\  & Exponential model & 0.01 & 1.00 & 0.05 & 0.00 & a = 1.5407, k = 0.80783 \\  & [PERSON] & 0.01 & 1.00 & 0.05 & 0.00 & a = 0.80837, b = 0.58589 \\  & proposed model & 0.02 & 1.00 & 0.10 & 0.01 & a = 2.7692, b = 4.3711, k = 4.1696 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Rehydration kinetics mathematical modeling. anthocyanin compounds and vitamin C significantly (\(p<0.05\)) more than the microwaves drying methods. Our findings were in concordance with previous studies on pomegranate peel and persimmon, which reported that freeze drying retained higher TPC, TFC, and antioxidant capacity than other drying methods, such as vacuum oven and hot air ([PERSON] and [PERSON], 2017; [PERSON], 2017). Those findings are also supported by the study performed by [PERSON] et al. (2018), [PERSON] et al. (2018), and [PERSON] et al. (2018). The antioxidant capacity of the dried tree tomato fruit as indicated by the DPPH and FRAP were statistical significantly (\(p<0.05\)) higher in the tree tomato dried by microwaves. DPPH was higher in the tree tomato fruit dried with microwaves at 650 W with 57.48 \(\pm\) 0.90 mmol trolox/g and the lowest was in the samples dried in freeze dryer with 46.14 \(\pm\) 1.39 mmol trolox/g.