## 3 Results
### Characterization of Solid Fractions Obtained after OH and CONV Extraction of Tomato Bagasse
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Recovery Index (\%)**} & \\ \hline
**Bioactivities** & **Samples** & **Mouth** & **Stomach** & **Small** & **Colon** & **Basolateral** & **Bioaccessibility** \\ \hline Total Phenol & SFCONV & 101.42 \(\pm\) 2.34 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 124.11 \(\pm\) 1.28 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 121.99 \(\pm\) 2.03 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 90.78 \(\pm\) 1.12 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 9.22 \(\pm\) 1.07 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 7.03 \(\pm\) 0.42 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\  & SFOH & 70.44 \(\pm\) 1.56 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 172.86 \(\pm\) 2.34 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 122.18 \(\pm\) 1.24 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 103.04 \(\pm\) 1.28 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 15.32 \(\pm\) 1.25 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 11.14 \(\pm\) 0.76 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline ABTS & SFCONV & 103.08 \(\pm\) 2.23 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 134.35 \(\pm\) 1.78 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 124.14 \(\pm\) 2.02 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 98.49 \(\pm\) 2.45 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 18.1 \(\pm\) 1.96 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 14.58 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\  & SFOH & 81.45 \(\pm\) 1.87 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 175.71 \(\pm\) 2.56 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 108.26 \(\pm\) 1.95 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 92.51 \(\pm\) 1.96 & 7.49 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 6.47 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline Orac & SFCONV & 109.34 \(\pm\) 2.25 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 121.65 \(\pm\) 1.25 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 119.60 \(\pm\) 1.21 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 90.49 \(\pm\) 2.54 & 9.51 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 7.37 \(\pm\) 0.31 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\  & SFOH & 89.19 \(\pm\) 2.54 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 160.36 \(\pm\) 2.46 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 108.26 \(\pm\) 2.38 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 87.50 \(\pm\) 1.26 & 12.50 \(\pm\) 1.01 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 10.35 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Phenol compounds} & & & & & \\ \hline gallic acid & SFCONV & 101.19 \(\pm\) 1.87 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 93.56 \(\pm\) 1.17 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 7.62 \(\pm\) 0.97 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & n.d. & 93.56 \(\pm\) 1.87 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 92.46 \(\pm\) 1.03 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\  & SFOH & 134.31 \(\pm\) 1.12 & 8.45 \(\pm\) 0.2 3 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 29.76 \(\pm\) 0.79 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & n.d. & 100.00 \(\pm\) 2.05 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 77.07 \(\pm\) 1.44 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline
4-hydroxybenzoic & SFCONV & 100.38 \(\pm\) 1.56 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 87.64 \(\pm\) 1.68 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 12.74 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & n.d. & 87.64 \(\pm\) 1.67 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 87.31 \(\pm\) 1.38 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ acid & SFOH & 102.54 \(\pm\) 1.69 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 84.92 \(\pm\) 1.78 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 70.98 \(\pm\) 1.45 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 70.98 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 13.94 \(\pm\) 1.36 & 16.42 \(\pm\) 1.22 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{P-comamic acid} & SFCONV & 79.35 \(\pm\) 2.56 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 121.14 \(\pm\) 1.27 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 42.49 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 36.15 \(\pm\) 0.89 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 78.65 \(\pm\) 1.23 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 64.92 \(\pm\) 1.12 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\  & SFOH & 89.07 \(\pm\) 1.98 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 59.51 \(\pm\) 1.25 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 100.42 \(\pm\) 2.76 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.42 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 99.37 \(\pm\) 3.01 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 49.74 \(\pm\) 1.12 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{rutin} & SFCONV & 17.01 \(\pm\) 0.54 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & n.d. & 68.83 \(\pm\) 1.05 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & n.d. & 58.83 \(\pm\) 2.16 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 46.08 \(\pm\) 1.56 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\  & SFOH & 7.84 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & n.d. & n.d. & n.d. & 7.56 \(\pm\)Regarding the ORAC method, higher values were found for SFCONV. Nevertheless, the same trend was found for SFOH and SFCONV within the gastrointestinal tract. For the SFCONV sample, a slight increase was observed in the mouth (RI 109.34%), followed by a significant increase in the stomach (\(p<0.05\)), and decreasing in the small intestine (RI 108.26%). In the case of AA, a reduction was observed in the small intestine step, manifesting more in the ABTS of SFOH samples (RI 63.45%) than ORAC (RI 52.10%).