## 3 Results and Discussion
The effect of continuous electric current treatment on the content of lycopene, polyphenols and the antioxidant capacity of tomato fruits is presented in Table 5.  
The lycopene content varied from 7.85 mg:100 g\({}^{-1}\) d.w., in the control to 10.52 mg:100 g\({}^{-1}\) d.w., under treatment of DC with 0.45 A (T3); the difference of 34% being not significant for \(p<0.05\). However, the treatments with electric current had a positive influence on the lycopene content of tomato fruits, with an increase in its content being observed alongside the increase in the intensity of electric current (T1 \(<\) T2 \(<\) T3). T4 and T5, which consisted of an electric power of 1.5 V, gave approximately the same lycopene content (9.78 mg:100 g\({}^{-1}\) d.w. and 9.43 mg:100 g\({}^{-1}\) d.w., respectively). An increase in the lycopene content due to pulsed electric fields was also recorded by [PERSON] et al. [55]. The mechanism proposed was the ethylene production as a result of the stress determined by pulsed electric fields which activated the enzymes involved in lycopene biosynthesis [53]. Thus, the increase in lycopene content in our experiment might be the result of an increased ethylene production in the plants subjected to an electric current which enhanced the lycopene content. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Variant** & **Firmness** & **Acidity** & **Total Soluble Solids** \\  & **(kg:cm\({}^{-2}\))** & **(g Citric Acid\(\cdot\)100 g\({}^{-1}\) f.w.)** & **(\({}^{\circ}\) Brix)** \\ \hline T1 & 3.45 \(\pm\) 0.25 b & 0.53 \(\pm\) 0.03 a & 5.23 \(\pm\) 0.03 a \\ T2 & 3.82 \(\pm\) 0.28 ab & 0.53 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 5.07 \(\pm\) 0.03 ab \\ T3 & 4.02 \(\pm\) 0.29 ab & 0.55 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 5.03 \(\pm\) 0.03 b \\ T4 & 4.56 \(\pm\) 0.33 ab & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.02 b & 4.83 \(\pm\) 0.03 c \\ T5 & 3.87 \(\pm\) 0.28 ab & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 5.07 \(\pm\) 0.03 ab \\ C & 4.93 \(\pm\) 0.35 a & 0.44 \(\pm\) 0.02 b & 5.10 \(\pm\) 0.06 ab \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Different letters (a-c) in a column are significantly different from each other (\(p\leq 0.05\)) obtained from [PERSON]’s multiple comparison test; a—high value; T1—0.15 A; T2—0.30 A; T3—0.45 A; T4—polarity; T5—soil version; C—Control.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: The organoleptic properties of tomato fruits under the influence of different electric current treatments. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variant** & **Lycopene** & **\(\beta\)-Carotene** & **Polyphenols** & **Antioxidant Activity** \\  & **(mg:100 g\({}^{-1}\) d.w.)** & **(mg:100 g\({}^{-1}\) d.w.)** & **(mg:100 g\({}^{-1}\) d.w.)** & **(mmol Trol\(\cdot\)100 g\({}^{-1}\) d.w.)** \\ \hline T1 & 8.21 \(\pm\) 0.68 ns & 7.46 \(\pm\) 0.49 ns & 1698.45 \(\pm\) 83.50 ns & 83.05 \(\pm\) 0.51 a \\ T2 & 9.16 \(\pm\) 0.81 ns & 7.69 \(\pm\) 0.50 ns & 1722.42 \(\pm\) 199.81 ns & 77.03 \(\pm\) 0.56 b \\ T3 & 10.52 \(\pm\) 0.82 ns & 7.47 \(\pm\) 0.49 ns & 1863.18 \(\pm\) 226.02 ns & 72.84 \(\pm\) 0.15 c \\ T4 & 9.78 \(\pm\) 1.32 ns & 7.58 \(\pm\) 0.50 ns & 1766.87 \(\pm\) 100.22 ns & 73.28 \(\pm\) 0.34 c \\ T5 & 9.43 \(\pm\) 0.53 ns & 7.77 \(\pm\) 0.51 ns & 1772.43 \(\pm\) 104.44 ns & 73.91 \(\pm\) 0.68 bc \\ C & 7.85 \(\pm\) 0.66 ns & 7.00 \(\pm\) 0.46 ns & 1735.11 \(\pm\) 33.10 ns & 81.35 \(\pm\) 1.35 a \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: The antioxidant status of tomato fruits. The \(\beta\) caroten content of the treated plants, as in the case of lycopene content, was not significant different as compared to the control. The values recorded varied from 7 mg\(\cdot\)100 g\({}^{-1}\) d.w. to 7.77 mg\(\cdot\)100 g\({}^{-1}\) d.w. Even if the differences between treatments were not significant, the plants subjected to electric current had tomato fruits with higher \(\beta\) caroten values as compared to the control. The treatment in which two copper electrodes connected to an electric current intensity of 1.5 V were inserted in the soil (T5) had the best positive influence on the \(\beta\) caroten content.