## 2 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & \multirow{2}{*}{**Compound**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Rt**} & \(\lambda_{\text{max}}\) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**[M-H] \(m/z\)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Variant**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & **min** & **nm** & **MS** & **MS/MS** & **Control** & **1\% H\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{2}\)** & **3\% H\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{2}\)** \\ \hline
1 & Caffeic acid \(O\)-glucose I & 2.29 & 327 & 341 & 179 & 4.12 & 3.66 & 3.34 \\ \hline
2 & \(p\)-Coumaric acid \(O\)-glucose I & 2.39 & 302 & 325 & 163 & 2.27 & 2.19 & 2.35 \\ \hline
3 & Caffeic acid \(O\)-glucose II & 2.51 & 324 & 341 & 179 & 2.61 & 2.22 & 2.67 \\ \hline
4 & Caffeic acid \(O\)-glucose III & 2.66 & 329 & 341 & 179 & 0.89 & 0.73 & 0.83 \\ \hline
5 & Ferulic acid \(O\)-glucose & 2.73 & 314 & 355 & 193 & 0.64 & 0.41 & 1.01 \\ \hline
6 & Caffeic acid \(O\)-glucose IV & 2.85 & 324 & 341 & 179 & 0.72 & 0.71 & 0.74 \\ \hline
7 & 3-O-caffeoylquinic acid & 2.95 & 327 & 353 & 191 & 3.18 & 3.22 & 2.65 \\ \hline
8 & 5-O-caffeoylquinic acid & 3.09 & 327 & 353 & 191 & 1.74 & 1.75 & 1.67 \\ \hline
9 & \(p\)-Coumaric acid \(O\)-glucose II & 3.16 & 320 & 325 & 163 & 0.80 & 0.67 & 0.64 \\ \hline
10 & Caffeic acid & 3.27 & 327 & 179 & 119 & 0.53 & 0.51 & 0.51 \\ \hline
11 & Quercetin & & & & & & & \\
3-O-rutinoside-7-O-pentoside & 4.19 & 255.354 & 741 & 609.301 & 1.55 & 1.28 & 1.35 \\ \hline
12 & Quercetin 3-\(O\)-rutinoside & 4.56 & 255.355 & 609 & 301 & 1.43 & 1.41 & 1.69 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Total} & & & & 20.50 \(\pm\) & 18.79 \(\pm\) & 19.45 \(\pm\) \\  & & & & & 0.37 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.24 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.27 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular} NOTE: mean values marked with different lowercase letters are significantly different at \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Individual phenolic compounds identified by UPLC-PDA-MS/MS in tomato fruits cultivated under cover after the H\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{2}\) treatment (mg 100 g\({}^{-1}\) d.w.). structures, which are susceptible to direct attack by this reactive oxygen species (ROS). This further influences the differences in the profile of this group of compounds [39]. It should be noted that the use of these factors can significantly increase the value of consumed fruit resulting from the increased content of phenolic compounds; however, after conducting additional studies, it can also affect the use of these methods to protect tomato plants from fungal pathogens. This is due to the fact that ozone and hydrogen peroxide have strong disinfecting effects, which can be used to protect tomato plants during growth. Scientists conducted a study on the effect of hydrogen peroxide (H\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{2}\)) on the quality of wax apple fruit (_Syzygium samarangense_ ([PERSON]), a widely cultivated fruit tree in Southeast Asia. Based on the results of the study, they found that once a week, spraying with hydrogen peroxide at a concentration of 20 mM increased the content of organic chemical compounds from the polyphenol group in the analyzed fruits compared to the control variant [32]. In addition, gaseous ozone applied during the vegetation period increased the concentration of polyphenols in tomato fruits [40], kiwi [41] red peppers, cucumbers or zucchini [42]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **Rt** & \(\mathbf{\lambda_{\text{max}}}\) & **[M-H] \(\mathbf{m/z}\)** & **Variant** & & & & & & & \\ \cline{3-12}  & & & & & &