Proximate, Mineral and Vitamin Analysis of Fresh and Canned Tomato

Abstract

Many forms of preserved tomato are today available in the market. They range from dried, canned juiced and some other forms. These are to ensure nonstop supply of the fruit throughout the year and to prevent spoilage. However, in many cases; when a food item is subjected to the preservation techniques, they tend to lose some nutrients compared to the fresh food item. The current study aimed at comparing the nutritional contents of canned and fresh tomato obtained from the market. Proximate, mineral and vitamin analysis conducted on three samples of canned tomato paste (C1, C2 and C3) and fresh tomato (Cf) show that, the fresh tomato has high percentage composition of moisture (93.8±3.00) and fat (0.62±0.08) than the three canned tomato. However, it has the least percentage composition of carbohydrate (2.52±0.01), protein (1.00±0.49), crude fibre (1.21±0.99) and ash (0.85±0.01) compared to canned tomato (p<0.05). When Mineral analysis was conducted, it indicate that sodium, potassium, and calcium concentrations are significantly higher in canned tomato (p<0.05), while the iron was found to be significantly higher in fresh tomato (p<0.05). Vitamin A content of fresh tomato is higher while that of vitamin C is higher in canned tomato.

Nutritional Composition and Bioactive Compounds in Tomatoes and Their Impact on Human Health and Disease: A Review

“…From a nutritional perspective, tomato is a good source of minerals and other elements [ 4 , 44 ]. In this review, 23 types of minerals and their amounts present in tomato are compiled, including the major elements (calcium, potassium, sodium, phosphorus, magnesium, sulfur, chlorine) and trace elements (iron, iodine, zinc, fluorine, cupper, manganese, cobalt, chromium, nickel, aluminum, arsenic, boron, lead, cadmium, nitrate, chlorine, selenium, silicon) ( Table 2 ).…”

“…Tomatoes are used in many processed food products such as sauces, salads, soups, and pastes [ 2 ]. Common nutrients reported to be present in tomatoes are vitamins, minerals, fiber, protein, essential amino acids, monounsaturated fatty acids, carotenoids and phytosterols [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]. These nutrients perform various body functions including constipation prevention, reduction in high blood pressure, stimulation of blood circulation, maintenance of lipid profile and body fluids, detoxification of body toxins and maintaining bone structure as well as strength [ 1 , 7 , 8 ].…”

“…In general, these fibers are resistant to intestinal digestion in the large intestine and are believed to ameliorate bowel disorders, cancer, diabetes, CVDs, and obesity [ 21 , 22 ]. Important proximate composition parameters for tomatoes include sugar content, pH, energy, acidity and reducing sugar contents [ 4 ]. The proximate compositions help in the characterization and identification of tomato nutrients.…”

Non-destructive assessment of flesh firmness and dietary antioxidants of greenhouse-grown tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) at different fruit maturity stages

“…During the maturity process, tomato fruit undergoes a series of nutritional, biochemical and physiological modifications which affect their functional and proximate quality characteristics ( Abdullahi et al, 2016 ). The instrumental assessment of these changes are preferred over the sensory evaluation, to minimize the tangential variations.…”

Nutritional Quality, Functional Properties and Sensory Acceptability of an Orange - fleshed Sweet Potato - based Complementary Food

“…The OFSP flour had a high (61%) carbohydrate content; and this characteristic of the OFSP flour was expected because it is a starchy root.Since complementary foods are expected to be energy dense [19], this attribute of the OFSP flour makes it a suitable ingredient for developing foods.The carbohydrate percentage (61%) reported in this study was lower than those found by Laryea [20] and Dansby and Bovell-Benjamin [21] which were 83.29% and 90.6% respectively.The difference in carbohydrate content as cited by Laryea [20] and Dansby and Bovell-Benjamin [21] may be due to a difference in the variety of the sweet potato, the method of cultivation and the soil conditions under which the sweet potatoes were planted, as asserted by [22].The percentage of moisture recorded were relatively higher (27.5%) for tomato powder as shown in Fig. 2.This was not surprising because tomato is a fleshy vegetable, known to have a high water content [23]. Onion powder had 18.35% moisture, while anchovy powder had 7.6%.…”