# Influence of Tomato Pomace on the Quality of Canned Pork Meat with Reduced Nitrogen Compounds
## 3 Results
### Antioxidant Properties and Secondary Lipid Oxidation Products  
The effect of the addition powdered tomato peels and seeds on the antiradical activity (ABTS+ and DPPH) and lipid oxidative stability of meat product samples is presented in Table 3. Significant differences were found in the ability to neutralize radicals (ABTS+, DPPH) between samples. Samples with TPSP were characterized by higher antioxidant activity. Antioxidant activity increased with the increase in the TPSP content. The addition  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Component [\%]** & **DFS C** & **DFS 0.5\%** & **DFS 1.5\%** & **DFS 2.5\%** \\ \hline Fat & 16.03 \(\pm\) 0.37 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 15.76 \(\pm\) 0.38 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 16.82 \(\pm\) 0.53 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 16.02 \(\pm\) 0.29 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Protein & 18.10 \(\pm\) 0.35 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 18.78 \(\pm\) 0.38 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 18.70 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 18.41 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Moisture & 63.72 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 62.91 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 62.64 \(\pm\) 0.48 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 62.19 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Collagen & 1.93 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 1.97 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2.17 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2.12 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Salt & 1.65 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 1.79 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 1.67 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 1.79 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* DFS C—control sample; DFS 0.5%—sample with 0.5% addition of TPSP; DFS 1.5%—sample with 1.5% addition of TPSP; DFS 2.5%—sample with 2.5% addition of TPSP. Means with different lowercase letters (a–b) differ significantly (\(p\leq 0.05\)).  
\end{table}
Table 1: Proximate chemical composition of canned pork. Values are means \(\pm\) standard deviation (n = 3).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Parameter** & **DFS C** & **DFS 0.5\%** & **DFS 1.5\%** & **DFS 2.5\%** \\ \hline pH & 6.162 \(\pm\) 0.006 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 6.130 \(\pm\) 0.004 \({}^{\mathrm{e}}\) & 6.068 \(\pm\) 0.003 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 5.984 \(\pm\) 0.005 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Water activity & 0.988 \(\pm\) 0.007 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.990 \(\pm\) 0.006 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.991 \(\pm\) 0.006 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.994 \(\pm\) 0.004 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ L* & 67.69 \(\pm\) 1.09 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 65.45 \(\pm\) 1.39 \({}^{\mathrm{e}}\) & 63.19 \(\pm\) 1.33 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 61.00 \(\pm\) 1.61 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ a* & 8.18 \(\pm\) 0.63 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 11.21 \(\pm\) 0.67 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 15.11 \(\pm\) 0.80 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 18.24 \(\pm\) 0.81 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) \\ b* & 7.83 \(\pm\) 0.60 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 10.95 \(\pm\) 0.92 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 14.58 \(\pm\) 1.23 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 17.39 \(\pm\) 0.80 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) \\ \(\Delta\)E & 4.88 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 10.66 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 14.18 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* DFS C—control sample; DFS 0.5%—sample with 0.5% addition of TPSP; DFS 1.5%—sample with 1.5% addition of TPSP; DFS 2.5%—sample with 2.5% addition of TPSP. Means with different lowercase letters (a–d) differ significantly (\(p\leq 0.05\)).  
\end{table}
Table 2: pH and water activity of canned pork. Values are means \(\pm\) standard deviation (n = 3).  
of the tomato peels and seeds' powder affected TBARS associated with lipid oxidation. Compared to other samples, the DFS C sample had a significantly (_p_ < 0.05) lower MDA content. The sample with 2.5% TPSP was characterized by an approximately five-times-higher TBARS value compared to the control sample.