## 3 Results and Discussion  
To evaluate the influence of continuous electric current on the characteristics of tomato fruits, determinations on the biometrical and physiological features of tomato plants, also on the quality of production were done. One of the biometrical features of tomato plants that have been carefully monitored refers to the height of the plants (Table 3). This parameter is very important because the more vigorous the plants, the more they have the ability to generate higher yields due to the fact that they will have a larger foliar surface that will be able to convert solar energy into photosynthesis. The results showed that, for the treated plants, the average height was between 154.33 and 161.33 cm, compared to control where the average plant height was only of 125.67 cm. Significant differences were observed between T1 and T2 compared to the control (C). The differences obtained between the treatments of approximately 33% can be attributed to the electric current applications [46]. No differences were registered between the different electric current intensities or the way of its application. No significant differences were registered for the number of fruits, the average fruits weight and the average fruits diameter. The results registered for the treated plants were relatively similar to the control, nonsignificant differences being recorded. Regarding the yield, in the case of all variants where an electric current was applied, higher values were recorded as compared to the control (C). However, significant differences were registered just only between the yield of T1 and the control (C). The physiological parameter monitored during the experiment was the chlorophyll. Usually, the chlorophyll content of leaves is a key indicator, which is often associated with the yield [47; 48]. The chlorophyll content of the plants is shown in Figure 2. Thus, it varied from 32.74 CCI, in the case of T2, to 38.75 CCI, in the case of T3, the differences of approximately 18.47% is not significantly different for \(p<0.05\) as compared to the control (C). Therefore, the application of various intensities of electric currents to the plants did not influence the chlorophyll content of the leaves. Our results suggest that the chlorophyll content did not influence the yield, the lowest yield being recorded in control plants which had a high chlorophyll value. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variant** & **Plant Height (cm)** & **Number of Fruits** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Average Fruits** \\ **Weight (g)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Average Fruits** \\ **Diameter (mm)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Yield (t-ha-1)** \\ \hline T1 & 161.33 \(\pm\) 4.48 a & 33.00 \(\pm\) 2.31 ns & 164.38 \(\pm\) 11.98 ns & 69.29 \(\pm\) 1.79 ns & 142.47 \(\pm\) 35.03 a \\ T2 & 160.33 \(\pm\) 8.41 a & 36.67 \(\pm\) 3.76 ns & 148.00 \(\pm\) 10.65 ns & 68.16 \(\pm\) 3.31 ns & 138.40 \(\pm\) 12.89 ab \\ T3 & 154.33 \(\pm\) 6.96 ab & 38.33 \(\pm\) 4.37 ns & 132.35 \(\pm\) 9.52 ns & 64.07 \(\pm\) 1.70 ns & 133.60 \(\pm\) 42.76 ab \\ T4 & 156.67 \(\pm\) 4.91 ab & 36.33 \(\pm\) 5.21 ns & 147.30 \(\pm\) 10.59 ns & 67.42 \(\pm\) 3.49 ns & 138.01 \(\pm\) 39.45 ab \\ T5 & 155.67 \(\pm\) 6.12 ab & 36.00 \(\pm\) 2.52 ns & 124.55 \(\pm\) 8.96 ns & 63.62 \(\pm\) 1.18 ns & 115.50 \(\pm\) 6.32 ab \\ C & 125.67 \(\pm\) 9.94 b & 27.67 \(\pm\) 3.48 ns & 118.89 \(\pm\) 8.55 ns & 62.01 \(\pm\) 1.91 ns & 83.49 \(\pm\) 8.30 b \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The biometric measurements of tomato plants and fruits under the influence of different electric currents treatments.