## 3 Results and Discussion
The increase in the \(\beta\) caroten content due to the application of an electric current might be the result of an increased influx of Ca\({}^{2+}\) through cations channels, due to an increase at the cellular level of the membrane permeability for Ca\({}^{2+}\), which promotes the biosynthesis of carotenoids in tomato fruits [55]. Regarding the influence of the treatments on the polyphenol content, the results were non-significant for \(p<0.05\). The registered values ranged from 1698.45 mg 100 g\({}^{-1}\) d.w., in T1, to 1863.18 mg 100 g\({}^{-1}\) d.w., in T3. Similar results in tomatoes were obtained by [PERSON] et al. [55], in tuberous roots ofadish by [PERSON] et al. [56], in lettuce by [PERSON] et al. [57] and watercross by [PERSON] et al. [58]. As in the case of lycopene and \(\beta\) caroten contents, the content of polyphenols in tomato fruits increased as the intensity of the electric current was risen, the influence of the treatments with 1.5 V (T4 and T5) being almost the same as in the case of 0.30 A (T2). The continuous electric current treatments applied to the plants registered significant differences on the antioxidant capacity (Tabel 5). This ranged from 72.84 mmol Trol 100 g\({}^{-1}\) d.w., in the case of T3, to 83.05 mmol Trol : 100 g\({}^{-1}\) d.w., in the case of T1. No significant differences were registered between T1 and C, while for the rest of the treatments with electric current, the antioxidant activity was significantly lower than in the case of the non-treated plants (C). The results obtained in our experiments were lower, than those recorded by [PERSON] et al. : 101.60 mmol Trol 100 g\({}^{-1}\) f.w., in the case of treatment with 2 kV\(\cdot\)cm\({}^{-1}\) for 5 pulses, up to 134.67 mmol Trol 100 g\({}^{-1}\) f.w., in the case of treatment with 1.2 kV\(\cdot\)cm\({}^{-1}\) for 30 pulses [55]. The proximate composition of tomato fruits is presented in Table 6. The electric current treatments did not influence the content of the ash, crude lipid, crude protein and the calorific value, no significant differences being registered as compared with the control. Only for the crude fibre and dietary fibre significant differences were obtained between the treatments. The crude fibre content varied from 13.43 g\(\cdot\)100 g\({}^{-1}\) d.w. for C and T2 to 23.07 g\(\cdot\)100 g\({}^{-1}\) d.w. for T3. Except for the treatments T3 and T4 for which significant differences were registered as compared with the C, no significant differences were recorded for the rest of the treatments. Regarding the dietary fibre content of tomato fruits, the plants subjected to 0.15 A (T1) and 1.5 V--soil version (T5) registered significantly higher values as compared with the control. No significant differences were registered between the rest of the electric current treatments and the control. The dietary fibres are mainly composed of cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, pectins, resistant starch and non-digestible oligosaccharides. Cellulose which accounts for about 33% of the cell wall of fresh fruit can fluctuate in quantity during the ripening of the fruits. The consumption of foods rich in dietary fibres is very important taking into account their function in the normal peristaltic movement of the bowels [59]. Therefore, in our experiment, the increase in the amount of dietary fibre in the tomato fruits of the plants subjected to different intensities of electric current represents a positive feature for consumption. The antinutritional composition of tomato fruits subjected to different electric current treatments is presented in Table 7. The results show that the content of phytate and trypsin inhibitor are not influenced by the electric current treatments, regardless of the intensity applied. Influences of the electric current application were registered for the content of tannins, oxalate, saponin and \(\alpha\)-amylase inhibitor. The content of tannins varied between 1.18 g\(\cdot\)100 g\({}^{-1}\) d.w. and 3.96 g\(\cdot\)100 g\({}^{-1}\) d.w.