See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326449171

Characterization of tomato processing by-product for use as a potential

functional food ingredient: nutritional composition, antioxidant activity and
bioactive compounds

Article  in  International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition · July 2018

DOI: 10.1080/09637486.2018.1489530

CITATIONS READS

0 183

7 authors, including:

Yasmini Silva Tânia Ferreira

Universidade Federal de Goiás Universidade Federal de Goiás
6 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   151 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Industrial tomato waste recovery View project

Tania PhD View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tânia Ferreira on 30 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition

ISSN: 0963-7486 (Print) 1465-3478 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/iijf20

Characterization of tomato processing by-product

for use as a potential functional food ingredient:
nutritional composition, antioxidant activity and
bioactive compounds

Yasmini P. A. Silva, Bárbara C. Borba, Vanessa A. Pereira, Marcela G. Reis,

Márcio Caliari, Marianne Su-Ling Brooks & Tânia A. P. C. Ferreira

To cite this article: Yasmini P. A. Silva, Bárbara C. Borba, Vanessa A. Pereira, Marcela G.
Reis, Márcio Caliari, Marianne Su-Ling Brooks & Tânia A. P. C. Ferreira (2018): Characterization
of tomato processing by-product for use as a potential functional food ingredient: nutritional
composition, antioxidant activity and bioactive compounds, International Journal of Food Sciences
and Nutrition

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09637486.2018.1489530

Published online: 17 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=iijf20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCES AND NUTRITION
https://doi.org/10.1080/09637486.2018.1489530

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Characterization of tomato processing by-product for use as a potential

functional food ingredient: nutritional composition, antioxidant activity and
bioactive compounds
Yasmini P. A. Silvaa , B
arbara C. Borbaa, Vanessa A. Pereiraa, Marcela G. Reisa, M
arcio Caliarib,
Marianne Su-Ling Brooksc and T^ania A. P. C. Ferreiraa
a
Faculty of Nutrition, Federal University of Goi
as, Goi^ania, Brazil; bCollege of Agronomy, Food Engineering and Forestry Engineering,
Federal University of Goi
as, Goi^ania, Brazil; cDepartment of Process Engineering and Applied Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax,
NS, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Tomato pomace, a by-product generated during tomato processing, was collected at a large Received 3 April 2018
tomato processing industry. The by-product was mainly constituted of tomato skin (61.5%), and Revised 8 June 2018
presented high moisture content (66.58 g.100g
1 wet basis). Among the nutrients, the highest Accepted 12 June 2018
content was of dietary fibre, followed by proteins and fat (50.74, 20.91, 14.14 g.100g
1 d.w.,
KEYWORDS
respectively). The pomace has high in vitro antioxidation capacity, especially when measured Solanum lycopersium;
with the TEAC assay (224.81 lmol Trolox equivalent 100g
1 d.w.). This is due especially to the pomace; dietary fibre;
high amount of lycopene remaining in the by-product after processing (446.9 lg.g
1 d.w). lycopene; sedimentation
The waste was fractioned into skin and seed fractions by sedimentation, resulting in the increase
of lycopene yield by 55%, when using skin fraction as the source material in place of the whole
pomace. This by-product shows great potential for being used as a source of the ingredients of
high nutritional value, especially dietary fibre and lycopene.

Introduction initial weight of tomatoes, thus representing from

Tomato (Solanum lycopersium) is one of the vegetable
crops most widely produced in the world, being either
consumed directly (fresh tomato) or used to produce
tomato products (processing tomato). The industrial
processing of tomatoes to obtain tomato products
such as paste, juice, puree, sauce, soup, ketchup,
whole dried tomatoes and tomato powder is an
industrial activity with growing importance on a
global scale, with worldwide production of processing
tomato reaching approximately 40 million tonnes
annually (FAO 2016; WPTC 2016).
During the processing of tomatoes, the main resi-
due generated is the tomato pomace, a mix of tomato
skin and seeds and a small fraction of the pulp. The
amount of pomace produced can vary from one proc-
essing plant to the other, due to the raw material
characteristics and processing conditions, and has
been reported to range from 1.5% (amount declared
by the industrial plant of this study) up to 5%
(Knoblich et al. 2005; Del Valle et al. 2006) of the
600 thousand to 2 million tonnes of disposed organic
matter. This residue is mainly used in animal feed or
is dumped in the landfills (Ruiz-Celma et al. 2012),
thus representing costs and environmental concerns
for the tomato processing industry.
There is a great potential for the usage of vegetable
industrial wastes as a source of bioactive compounds
with antioxidant activity (Balasundram et al. 2006).
Tomatoes are rich in antioxidant compounds such as
carotenoids, ascorbic acid and phenolic compounds
(Borguini and Torres 2009; Vinha et al. 2014).
Furthermore, the skin and seed fractions of tomatoes
are richer sources of phenolic compounds and present
higher antioxidant activity than the pulp fraction
(George et al. 2004; Toor and Savage 2005; Chandra
et al. 2012). Also, tomato skin contains a high dietary
fibre content (Navarro-Gonz
alez et al. 2011), and the
seeds are rich in oil (Eller et al. 2010; Sogi et al. 1999;
Botineştean et al. 2015). Therefore, significant amounts
of some of these valuable nutrients, particularly heat-
and oxidation-resistant compounds, are potentially

CONTACT Yasmini P. A. Silva yasminiportes@gmail.com Faculty of Nutrition, Federal University of Goi
as – Rua 227, qd. 68, Setor Leste
Universit
ario – 74605-080 – Goi^ania, GO, Brazil
ß 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 Y. P. A. SILVA ET AL.
present in the pomace which is being discarded during
processing of tomatoes. This by-product has then a
high potential of being used for the recovery of
nutrients and antioxidant bioactive compounds, and it
is largely available in many countries around the world.
Considering the worldwide presence of the tomato
processing industry, the matter of disposal of tomato
processing waste and the importance of antioxidants
and phenolic compounds for human health, this
research evaluated (1) the proportion of skin, pulp
and seeds, proximate composition (moisture, dietary
fibre, available carbohydrates, protein, fat and ash),
in vitro antioxidant capacity, total phenolic content
and lycopene content of tomato pomace, to assess the
potential of reusing this residue as a by-product
source of nutrients, bioactive compounds or as a func-
tional ingredient for food applications, and (2) the
fractionation of tomato pomace in skin and seed
fractions, to assess the possibility of increasing lyco-
pene extraction yield from the by-product.
Material and methods
Chemicals
Acetone, chloroform, ethanol, glacial acetic acid,
hexane, hydrochloric acid, methanol, petroleum ether
and sulphuric acid, were purchased from Synth
(Diadema, SP, Brazil). ABTS (2,2’-azinobis ((3-ethyl-
benzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) diammonium salt),
DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl), gallic acid
(3,4,5-trihydroxybenzoic acid), Folin-Ciocalteu phenol
reagent, TPTZ (2,4,6-tripyridyl-s-triazine), Trolox
(6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic
acid), and enzymes a-Amylase, amyloglucosidase and
protease, were purchased from Sigma Aldrich (Sigma-
Aldrich Brasil Ltda., S~ao Paulo, Brazil). All reagents
used were of ultra-pure laboratory grade.
Plant material
Tomato pomace samples were obtained from an indus-
trial processing plant located in the state of Goi
as
(Brazil), in October 2015, on 6 distinct days, totalling 6
batches of tomato pomace, all originated from the
same tomato cultivar of industrial tomato, but origi-
nated from different producers in the state. Each day,
approximately 25 kg of pomace were collected in steri-
lised plastic containers immediately after being pro-
duced and transported to the laboratory. One part of it
was immediately used for determining the proportion
of skin and seeds, one part was freeze-dried to preserve
the bioactive compounds, and the last part was vacuum
packed while it was still fresh. Both freeze-dried and
fresh samples were stored in sterilised and impermeable
plastic bags, wrapped in aluminium foil and frozen at
–40  C in biofreezer (FV500, Liotop, S~ao Carlos, Brazil)
until further analyzes.
Physicochemical characterisation
Proportion of skin and seeds
For determining the percentage of skin, seeds and
pulp in fresh samples, approximately 100 g of sample
was taken and manually separated, using sieves and
stainless-steel forceps, in two fractions: skin þ pulp
combined, and seeds. Each fraction was then weighed
and expressed as the percentage weight. Separation
was performed in triplicate.
Color
The colour parameters of the samples were determined
in digital colorimeter Colour Quest XE (Hunter Lab
Reston, Virginia, EUA) calibrated with a white stand-
ard, using the colour system CIELAB, where parameters
L (luminosity, 0–100), a (greenness (–) to redness
(þ)) and b (blueness (–) to yellowness (þ)) were
obtained in 6 points for each sample. From these val-
ues, the parameters ho (hue, expressed in  ) and C
(chrome, colour intensity) were calculated, according to
the Equations (1) and (2), respectively (McGuire 1992).


b

1
h0 ðradÞ ¼ tan (1)
a
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
C  ¼ a2 þ b2 (2)
Proximate nutritional composition
Samples were thawed at 4  C and were grounded in
benchtop mill (A11, IKA, Staufen, Germany) for hom-
ogenisation before analyzes. The proximate compos-
ition (moisture, dietary fibre, protein, total fat and
ash) of samples was then determined in triplicate.
Moisture was analysed by drying approximately 5 g of
sample in air oven at 105  C until the weight became
constant (AOAC method 934.01); dietary fibre was
determined by enzymatic digestion of 1 g of dried and
defatted sample (AOAC method 985.29); total nitro-
gen content was determined using approximately
200 mg of sample by the micro-Kjeldhal method; the
protein content was then calculated using a conver-
sion factor of 6.25 (AOAC method 968.06); ash
content was determined by incinerating approximately
5 g of the sample in a muffle furnace at 550  C for
8 hours (AOAC method 942.05) (AOAC 2005); total

fat content was determined in approximately 3 g of
the sample following the method described by Bligh
and Dyer (1959). The available carbohydrates content
was then determined by difference, using the average
values of moisture, dietary fibre, protein, fat and ash
contents (AOAC 2005).
Freeze-drying
Samples were placed in six stainless steel trays, each
containing approximately 100 g of the sample distrib-
uted in 0.5 cm-thick layers. Trays were covered with
an aluminium foil and were placed overnight at
–40  C in biofreezer (FV500, Liotop, S~ao Carlos,
Brazil). Freeze-drying was then performed by a bench-
top freeze-dryer (L108, Liotop, S~ao Carlos, Brazil)
which reached –50  C, for approximately 16 hours.
Samples were then grounded in benchtop mill to
0.5 mm particle diameter (32 mesh), vacuum packed,
wrapped in an aluminium foil, and kept at –40  C
until further analyzes. The final moisture content of
freeze-dried samples was determined in a vacuum
oven at 72  C until weight became constant (AOAC
method 934.06) (AOAC 2005).
Bioactive compounds
Extraction for antioxidant capacity and total
phenolic content
The extracts for the determination of in vitro antioxi-
dant capacity and total phenolic content were
obtained, in triplicate, as described by Larrauri et al.
(1997), with adaptations. Under subdued light,
approximately 2 g of grounded freeze-dried samples
were placed in 30 mL screw-top vials, to which 10 mL
of methanol 50% (v/v) was added. Flasks were then
agitated at 90 rpm for 30 minutes in a rotary mixer,
and then centrifuged (centrifuge MPW-350R, MPW
Med. Instruments, Poland) at 10,000 rpm (8,700 RCF)
at 20  C for 15 minutes. The supernatant (extract) was
then filtered to a 25 mL volumetric flask wrapped in
an aluminium foil. Ten mL of acetone 70% (v/v) were
added to the extraction residue and the agitation-cen-
trifugation-filtration procedure was repeated. This
supernatant was added to the first extract, and the
extraction residue was washed with distilled water.
This water was filtered and collected in the flask to
make up to 25 mL. Extracts were then analyzed imme-
diately after extraction. A control solution for the
spectrophotometric analyzes was prepared in a 25 mL
volumetric flask by adding 10 mL of methanol 50%
(v/v), 10 mL of acetone 70% (v/v), and distilled water
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCES AND NUTRITION 3
to make up 25 mL. The spectrometric analyzes of
absorbance at an appropriate wavelength for the
determination of antioxidant capacity and bioactive
compounds were performed in spectrophotometer
UV-visible (Jasco V-630, Jasco, Japan) in triplicate.
Assays were performed under subdued light, at 25  C,
immediately after the extraction.
In vitro antioxidant capacity
Antioxidant capacity of freeze-dried tomato pomace
was evaluated using three methods, described below.
DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) radical scav-
enging assay: In this assay, performed according to
Brand-Williams et al. (1995), the antioxidant capacity
of the sample is defined as its ability to donate elec-
trons to neutralise the DPPH radical. The absorbance
of the solutions was measured at 515 nm. The per-
centage of inhibition (PI) of the DPPH radical was
calculated according to Equation (3), where Acontrol is
the absorbance of the control solution and Asample is
the absorbance in presence of the sample extract.
Results were expressed as PI of the DPPH radical per
1 g of dry weight of pomace.
Acontrol
Asample
% inhibition DPPH ¼  100 (3)
Acontrol
FRAP (Ferric reducing antioxidant power) assay:
This assay measures the antioxidant capacity based on
the ability to reduce the ferric ion (Fe3þ)-ligand com-
plex to the ferrous (Fe2þ) complex in the acidic
media, and it was performed according to Benzie and
Strain (1996). Absorbance was measured at 595 nm.
A calibration curve was obtained using aqueous solu-
tions of ferrous sulphate (FeSO4.7H2O) as standard.
Results were expressed as lmol ferrous sulphate
equivalent (FSE) per 100 g of dry weight of pomace.
TEAC (Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity)
assay: In this assay, performed according to Re et al.
(1999), the antioxidant capacity of the samples is
assessed according to the ability to scavenge the stable
radical cation ABTSþ (2,2’-azinobis(3-ethylbenzothia-
zoline-6-sulphonic acid)). The absorbance of the solu-
tions was taken at 734 nm. The calibration curve was
obtained using trolox (6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethyl-
chroman-2-carboxylic acid) as standard. Results were
expressed as lmol of trolox equivalents (TE) per 100 g
of dry weight of pomace.
Total phenolic content
The total phenolic content was determined by the
Folin–Ciocalteu assay according to Singleton and
4 Y. P. A. SILVA ET AL.
Rossi (1965). In this assay, the Folin–Ciocalteu reagent
is reduced by the phenolic compounds present in the
extract, and the intensity of the resulting blue colour
is measured as absorbance at 740 nm. A calibration
curve was obtained using aqueous solutions of gallic
acid (3,4,5-trihydroxybenzoic acid). Results were
expressed as mg of gallic acid equivalent (GAE) per
100 g of dry weight of pomace.
Lycopene content
Lycopene content was determined according to
Rodriguez (2001). Lycopene was extracted from the
sample with a binary mixture of hexane and acetone
(1:1 v/v), using a high-performance homogeniser
(DU-15, Gehaka, S~ao Paulo, Brazil). The absorbance
of the extract was determined at 471 nm. If needed,
the extract was diluted with pure solvent to obtain
absorbance values between 0.3 and 0.8. The lycopene
content in the sample was then determined accord-
ing to Equation (4), where A is the absorbance of
the extract at 471 nm; V is the final volume of
extract obtained, considering eventual dilutions per-
formed (mL); E is the molar mass extinction coeffi-
cient of a pigment in a specific solvent (mL/g); and
W is the dry weight of sample used for extraction.
For lycopene in hexane, E in a cuvette with a 1-cm
light path is 3450 (Rodriguez-Amaya, 2001;
Rodriguez, 2001; Strati and Oreopoulou, 2011).
Results were expressed as mg of lycopene per 1 g of
dry weight of pomace.
  AV
Lycopene lg=g d:w: ¼  104 (4)
EW
Fractionation in skin and seed fractions
One of the batches (batch 6) was used to perform the
following analyzes. The sample was fractioned into
skin and seed fractions by a 3-step batch sedimenta-
tion process. In the first step, the pomace was soaked
in tap water at a solid:water ratio (v/v) of 1:5 for
5 minutes, forming an upper layer (mostly skins) and
a bottom layer (seeds). Each layer was collected and
soaked a second time, separately, in tap water (1:4
ratio of solid:water) for 3 minutes. In the third step,
each new layer was once again soaked in 1:4 ratio of
solid:water for another 2 minutes. The upper layers
were combined to form the skin fraction, and bottom
layers formed the seed fraction. Each layer was dried
in a paper towel for 10 minutes and then immediately
freeze-dried, along with a sample of the whole pom-
ace. The lycopene content of the three fractions
(whole pomace, skin fraction and seed fraction) was
then determined, as previously described in 2.4.5.
Statistical analysis
All analyses were performed in triplicate. Results are
expressed as the average of triplicate ± standard devi-
ation. For the antioxidant capacity and total phenolic
content assays, linear regression equations for the cali-
bration curves (r2 > 0.99) were obtained with the
Spectra ManagerTM software v. 2.08.01 (Jasco, Japan).
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was per-
formed to evaluate differences among batches, and
when a significant difference was detected, Tukey test
was performed, both at a 5% confidence level
(p < 0.05). Correlation between antioxidant capacity
and the bioactive compounds content was evaluated
through Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r).
Significant correlations (p < 0.05) were considered sig-
nificant when r of at least 0.7 was observed. Statistical
tests were performed using R software v. 3.2.2
(R Core Team 2015).
Results and discussion
Physicochemical characterisation
Composition in skin and seed fractions
Whole pomace, and skin þ pulp and seed fractions
after manual separation are shown in the Figure 1.
The skin þ pulp fraction was composed mainly of
skin, with a very little amount of pulp (Figure 1(b)).
Therefore, from now on, this fraction will be referred
to as ‘skin’ only. The proportion of skin and seeds of
tomato pomace varied slightly among the batches, but
in all batches the percentage of skin, which varied
from 57.5 ± 1.7% to 65.3 ± 1.9%, was greater than
seeds (34.7 ± 1.9% to 42.5 ± 1.7%), (Table 1), averaging
61.5% skin and 38.5% seeds for the 6 batches.
The pulp usually is the fraction of greatest interest
for the tomato industry, from which juice is extracted
to produce tomato paste, the base from which other
tomato-derived products are manufactured. The
absence of pulp on the residue, in contrast to values
of up to 40% pulp found in other studies (Sogi and
Bawa 1998), indicates that the processing conditions
applied by the industrial plant that produced the by-
product used in this study were very effective in
extracting the pulp, which contributes to the smaller
amount of pomace generated (1.5% of the weight of
raw tomatoes, as informed by the company) than the

Figure 1. (a) Whole pomace, and (b) skin and (c) seed
fractions of tomato pomace
amount reported by other studies, of up to 5%
(Knoblich et al. 2005; Del Valle et al. 2006).
Color
The colour parameters L, a, b, C e h0 of the six
batches of tomato pomace are shown in Table 2.
Although the samples were not uniform, being com-
posed of mostly skin interspersed with seeds, the aver-
age values of each parameter could be estimated with
a low error. The values of a (red, an average of
17.58 ± 0.79) and b (yellow, average 18.42 ± 1.26) are
very similar, indicating the orange colour of the sam-
ples. The intensity of the red colour in tomatoes is
directly related to the amount of lycopene in the
material. Lavelli and Torresani (2011) found higher
values of L (59.3 ± 0.5), a (23.8 ± 0.5) and b
(30.9 ± 0.4) for freeze-dried tomato pomace, indicating
a stronger colour intensity. However, their sample
material was obtained through a benchtop heating
process, which might be milder than the processing
conditions and thus allows for a higher preservation
of the red-colored pigment in the samples.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCES AND NUTRITION 5
The intense colour of tomato pomace can be a
positive or negative factor when considering its use as
a food ingredient, since it can alter the expected sen-
sory characteristics of the food product. For example,
if used as an antioxidant in meat products, the colour
can have a positive contribution towards the sensory
aspects of the product, besides the technological and
nutritional benefits (Savadkoohi et al. 2014). However,
if its use is intended for products such as breads
(Nour et al. 2015) or some kinds of drinks, the colour
can be prejudicial, and therefore the use of tomato
pomace may be more restricted to certain categories
of food products.
Proximate nutritional composition
A significant difference in components was observed
among the batches, as shown by the Tukey test
(Table 3). These differences were probably caused by
variations in the raw tomato characteristics processed
by the industrial plant. Although the six batches of
pomace were produced from the same tomato culti-
var, each one came from a different producer, and so
the variations among batches could be due to the dis-
tinct farming conditions during plant development.
Samples presented high moisture content, ranging
from 62.27 ± 0.54 to 70.14 ± 0.37 g.100g
1 (wet basis -
w.b.). This high moisture content makes tomato pom-
ace a product prone to physicochemical and microbio-
logical degradation. Therefore, a drying step would be
required to avoid deterioration and to allow storage
before its utilisation. Other studies observed similar or
even higher values for moisture contents, ranging
from 64.31 to 92.7 g.100g
1 (w.b.) (Knoblich et al.
2005; Del Valle et al. 2006; Lavelli and Torresani,
2011; Kalogeropoulos et al. 2012). These differences in
moisture content among the pomace samples from
different processing plants can be caused not only by
the difference in the raw materials, but also by the
processing conditions, such as the use or not of water
to transport the residue for final disposal or the qual-
ity control parameters of the processing plant. The
moisture content of the pomace is used as a critical
control point during the processing of tomato prod-
ucts: if above a specific threshold determined by the
company, it means that the pulp is not being com-
pletely extracted, and so the process parameters must
be adjusted to avoid this loss of valuable raw material.
The lower moisture found in the present work, when
compared with other studies, is another indicative of
an efficient pulp extraction process in the processing
plant.
6 Y. P. A. SILVA ET AL.

Table 1. Composition in skin and seeds (% of weight) of six batches of fresh tomato pomace.
Batch
Fraction (% weight) 1 2 3 4 5 6
Skin 65.3 ± 1.9() 59.4 ± 2.5 63.2 ± 1.4 63.6 ± 1.1 57.5 ± 1.7 61.1 ± 1.9
Seeds 34.7 ± 1.9 40.6 ± 2.5 36.8 ± 1.4 36.4 ± 1.1 42.5 ± 1.7 38.9 ± 1.9
()
Values expressed as average ± standard deviation of triplicate.

Table 2. Color parameters six batches of fresh tomato pomace.

Batch L a b C h0 (  )
1 46.87 ± 1.26b,c() 17.47 ± 1.18b 17.95 ± 1.79c,d 25.06 ± 2.06b,c 45.70 ± 1.49b,c
2 46.52 ± 1.31c 17.96 ± 1.18a,b 17.60 ± 1.56c,d 25.15 ± 1.88b,c 44.37 ± 1.26c
3 44.95 ± 1.27d 16.98 ± 1.86b 16.78 ± 1.35d 23.88 ± 2.20c 44.75 ± 1.58c
4 48.84 ± 0.57a 17.15 ± 0.68b 20.20 ± 0.68a 26.50 ± 0.80a,b 49.67 ± 1.16a
5 46.69 ± 1.06c 16.95 ± 0.95b 18.45 ± 1.38b,c 25.05 ± 1.64b,c 47.39 ± 0.77b
6 48.30 ± 0.68a,b 18.99 ± 0.83a 19.54 ± 0.78a,b 27.24 ± 1.07a 45.82 ± 0.79b,c
On the same column, averages followed by the same letter do not statistically differ at a 5% confidence level (Tukey
test, p < 0.05).
()
Values expressed as average ± standard deviation of triplicate.

Table 3. Moisture (g.100g
1 wet basis – w.b.) and proximate nutritional composition (g.100g
1 dry
weight – d.w.) of six batches of fresh tomato pomace.
Dry component (g.100g
1 d.w.)
Batch Moisture (g.100g
1 w.b.) Dietary fibre Proteins Fat Ash
)
1 67.53 ± 0.23b( 53.97 ± 1.01a 16.81 ± 0.49c 14.52 ± 0.92a,b,c 3.53 ± 0.04c
2 64.80 ± 0.30c 48.62 ± 0.77b 19.54 ± 1.11b,c 14.03 ± 1.91a,b,c 3.33 ± 0.02d
3 65.43 ± 0.42c 50.36 ± 1.96b 20.91 ± 1.14a,b 15.74 ± 0.90a,b 3.57 ± 0.04b,c
4 70.14 ± 0.37a 50.89 ± 0.69b 23.25 ± 1.26a 12.58 ± 0.79b,c 4.02 ± 0.05a
5 69.33 ± 0.85a 49.28 ± 1.62b 22.63 ± 1.21a 11.17 ± 2.32c 3.69 ± 0.10b
6 62.27 ± 0.54d 50.74 ± 1.30b 22.33 ± 0.53a 16.73 ± 0.51a 3.47 ± 0.02c,d
On the same column, averages followed by the same letter do not statistically differ at a 5% confidence level (Tukey
test, p < 0.05).
()
Values expressed as average ± standard deviation of triplicate.

Regarding other nutrients evaluated, the highest
content found was dietary fibre, ranging from 48.62 to
53.97 g.100g
1 in dry weight (d.w.) (Table 3). This
result suggests a potential of using tomato pomace as
a source of dietary fibre. The use of tomato pomace
as a functional ingredient could promote desirable
functional properties in foodstuffs, such as increasing
water/oil holding capacity, gel formation and emulsifi-
cation, decreasing synaeresis. Also, it could help to
achieve fibre intake levels suggested in dietary guide-
lines, thus promoting health benefits associated with
fibre consumption, such as lowering of cholesterol
levels and improvement of gut health (Elleuch et al.
2011). The efficient use of tomato pomace as a source
of fibres would represent the most effective use of this
by-product, since it represents approximately half of
its dry weight content. Further studies should be con-
ducted to evaluate the constitution of these fibres in
terms of soluble and insoluble fibres, their dietary and
functional properties, and their sensory and techno-
logical impacts on food.
Considerable amounts of protein (16.82 to
23.24 g.100g
1 d.w.) and fat (11.18 to 16.72 g.100g
1
d.w.) were also found (Table 3). Several amino acids,
both essential and non-essential, like lysine, methio-
nine, and cysteine have been identified in tomato skin
and seeds (Knoblich et al. 2005). Sogi et al. (2005)
found that tomato seed’s proteins contain high lysine
content, and that the nutritional quality of these pro-
teins, as measured by the protein efficiency ratio
(PER) and net protein utilisation (NPU), was similar
to that of other plant proteins. Therefore, these pro-
teins present the potential for being a good source of
supplementation of products with low lysine content,
such as cereals.
Pomace presented a high fat content (average of
14.14 g.100g
1 d.w.). Tomato seeds have been used as
an alternative source of vegetable oil, with extraction
yield varying between 10 and 35% of seeds dry weight
depending on the raw material characteristics and
extraction technique (Sogi et al. 1999; Eller et al. 2010;
Botineştean et al. 2015). Therefore, a large proportion
of the oil present in the tomato seeds was preserved
in the pomace after the industrial processing, even
after considerable physical processes (crushing, heat-
ing, stirring) were applied. The oils extracted from
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCES AND NUTRITION 7

tomato seeds present high contents of unsaturated
fatty acids, such as linoleic, palmitic and oleic acids
(Botineştean et al. 2015), and also present physico-
chemical properties similar to other traditional vege-
table oils, such as soybean, sunflower and cottonseed
oils (Shao et al. 2015). The extraction of oil from the
seeds obtained from tomato pomace could, therefore,
represent a good alternative use for this by-product.
However, it is important to evaluate the quality of the
oil extracted from the tomato pomace obtained from
a processing plant, in order to determine if the proc-
essing conditions applied during the pulp extraction
process, such as high temperatures and pressures,
have affected the oil characteristics or promoted deg-
radation by hydrolysis, oxidation or polymerisation
(Choe and Min 2007; Freire et al. 2013).
Bioactive compounds
In vitro antioxidant capacity
Antioxidants are bioactive molecules found in many
natural materials and are defined as compounds that
can safely interact with free radicals and terminate the
chain reaction before vital molecules are damaged
(Oroian and Escriche 2015). This interaction between
antioxidant compounds and free radicals can take
place through various mechanisms, such as binding of
metal ions, scavenging radicals and decomposing
peroxides. Since biological systems are complex, mul-
tiple reaction characteristics are present, and for this
reason usually more than one of these antioxidant
mechanisms occur simultaneously. Therefore it is
recommended to use more than one assay at the same
time to evaluate antioxidant activity (Moure et al.
2001; Prior et al. 2005; M€uller et al. 2011; Oroian and
Escriche, 2015). In this study, three methods were
applied to evaluate the AC of tomato pomace extracts
(Table 4). For each assay, small differences on antioxi-
dant capacity (AC) among the batches were observed,
as shown by the Tukey test. These variations can be
caused by differences in the biochemical characteris-
tics of the raw material processed, which generated
the pomace used in the study.
In the DPPH assay, the percentage of inhibition
(PI) of the DPPH radical varied between 17.1 ± 1.66
and 31.35 ± 0.18% (Table 4). The results of PI for
tomato by-products reported by different studies vary
widely, for example varying from as low as 0.19 to
7.63% depending on the drying conditions of tomato
skins (Albanese et al. 2014), to as high as between 60
and 82.31% for the skin fraction (Chandra and
Ramalingam 2011; Chandra et al. 2012). However,
these studies evaluated skin and seeds obtained from
the tomatoes processed under mild conditions at a
benchtop scale. Since the waste materials used in the
present study were obtained from a real processing
plant, the more intense processing conditions applied
may have caused degradation of antioxidant com-
pounds, thus having an impact on the AC. The study
of Valdez-Morales et al. (2014) supports this evidence,
in which tomato waste, produced by simulating proc-
essing operations (grounding, heating and stirring) on
a benchtop scale, showed lower values of AC measured
by the DPPH assay than the fresh tomatoes.
Antioxidant capacity of the six batches measured
by FRAP assay varied between 940.96 ± 66.85 and
1,287.02 ± 11.26 lmol ferrous sulphate equivalent
(FSE).100g
1 d.w. (Table 4). A wider range (between
640 and 2,300 lmol FSE.100g
1) was observed for the
whole pomace of 12 varieties of tomatoes (George
et al. 2004), while higher values were observed for the
skin (from 1,000 to 2,500 lmol FSE.100g
1) and lower

Table 4. In vitro antioxidant capacity measured by DPPH, FRAP and TEAC assays, and antioxidant compounds
(total phenolic content and lycopene content) of six batches of tomato pomace.
In vitro antioxidant capacity Antioxidant compounds
Batch DPPH(1) FRAP(2) TEAC(3) Total phenolic content(4) Lycopene(5)

1 24.85 ± 1.01b( ) 1,105.96 ± 78.21b 214.85 ± 7.68c 12.32 ± 0.15c 501.7 ± 14.4b
2 22.52 ± 1.58b,c 1,052.62 ± 61.58b,c 194.72 ± 4.95d 22.75 ± 2.36a 690.9 ± 21.0a
3 31.35 ± 0.18a 1,287.02 ± 11.26a 238.04 ± 1.79a,b 18.96 ± 3.02b 354.6 ± 17.9d
4 22.64 ± 0.56d 1,073.67 ± 42.55b 221.29 ± 5.73c 17.55 ± 1.24b 419.7 ± 15.1c
5 17.91 ± 1.66c 940.96 ± 66.85c 250.73 ± 6.31a 10.08 ± 0.18c 279.9 ± 16.4e
6 24.70 ± 1.27b 1,280.25 ± 90.81a 229.24 ± 5.05b,c 12.94 ± 0.95c 434.7 ± 13.1c
On the same column, averages followed by the same letter do not statistically differ at a 5% confidence level (Tukey test, p < 0.05).
()
Values expressed as average ± standard deviation of triplicate.
(1)
Results expressed as percentage of inhibition (PI) of DPPH radical of 1 g of dry weight.
(2)
Results expressed as lmol ferrous sulphate equivalent (FSE) per 100 g of dry weight.
(3)
Results expressed as lmol trolox equivalent (TE) per 100 g of dry weight.
(4)
Results expressed as mg gallic acid equivalent (GAE) per 100 g of dry weight.
(5)
Results expressed as lg lycopene per 1 g of dry weight.
8 Y. P. A. SILVA ET AL.

values for the seed (<500 lmol FSE.100g
1) of tomato parallel to assess the AC of food extracts. The results
by-products (Chandra and Ramalingam, 2011; found using three assays for measuring AC indicates
Chandra et al. 2012). Carlsen et al. (2010) published that lipophilic antioxidant compounds contribute
an Antioxidant Food Table, reporting the AC of more more towards the final AC of the tomato pomace.
than 3,000 food products worldwide, measured by the
FRAP assay. Interestingly, tomato pomace, consider- Total phenolic content
ing its dry weight, presents higher AC than the
Phenolic compounds are one of the phytochemicals
reported for a variety of tomato products in the study,
most commonly found in fruits and vegetables, and
such as juice (190–1,060 lmol FSE.100g
1), sauce
play a series of physiological and morphological roles,
(220–770 lmol FSE.100g
1), and canned tomatoes
besides contributing to the sensory characteristics of
(200–420 lmol FSE.100g
1). The AC of tomato
the plants (Manach, et al. 2004; Balasundram et al.
pomace is approximately 5 times higher than the
2006). They represent one of the classes of
value reported for raw tomatoes (160–300 lmol
antioxidants found in natural products, along with
FSE.100g
1), and it is similar to the values reported
carotenoids and vitamins (Oroian and Escriche, 2015).
for sundried tomato (1,300 lmol FSE.100g
1).
The PC of tomato pomace extracts varied between
When measured by the TEAC assay, AC varied
10.08 ± 0.18 and 22.75 ± 2.36 mg gallic acid equivalent
between 194.72 ± 4.95 and 250.73 ± 6.31 lmol Trolox
(GAE).100g
1 of dry weight (Table 4), similar to that
equivalent (TE).100g
1 of dry weight (Table 4), simi-
reported by Toor and Savage (2005), of 29.1 mg
lar to the results reported by Toor and Savage (2005)
GAE.100g
1 for tomato skin and 22.0 mg GAE.100g
1
of 212.6 ± 14.83 lmol TE.100g
1 for the hydrophilic
for seeds. Valdez-Morales et al. (2014), however,
extract of the skin of three tomato cultivars, but much
reported higher values of PC, 71.6 ± 2.7 and
higher than the reported for skin fraction of tomato
67.3 ± 0.3 mg GAE.100g
1 for the skin and seed frac-
pomace produced at benchtop scale by simulating the
tions of tomato waste, respectively, showing also that
processing conditions, which was 47.9 ± 5.0 lmol
PC of the skin was significantly reduced from the raw
TE.100g
1 (Valdez-Morales et al. 2014). Among the
skin (before processing) to the skin waste (63% loss),
assays used, TEAC is the one with the highest sensi-
while for the seed the reduction from the raw seed to
tivity to both hydrophilic and lipophilic extracts, while
the seed waste was less significant (9% loss). During
DPPH and FRAP assays are more effective in measur-
the industrial processing of fruits and vegetables,
ing the AC of hydrophilic compounds (Prior et al.
much of the phenolic compounds are lost during the
2005). Therefore, it is possible that extracted lipophilic
steps of peeling and dehulling, since most of these
antioxidant compounds, such as carotenoids, were
compounds are in the skin and seed fractions (George
detected only through the TEAC assay, as shown by
et al. 2004; Manach et al. 2004; Toor and Savage
M€ uller et al. (2011), where 6 carotenoid standards
2005). Therefore, it is expected that the pomace eval-
presented higher AC when evaluated with the TEAC
uated would contain a high PC. However, the results
assay than with the FRAP and DPPH assays.
found in the present study are lower than those
Besides tomato cultivar and processing conditions,
reported for some fresh vegetables, such as broccoli,
another source of variations for results of different
carrot, and spinach, with PC between 50 and 100 mg
studies is the analytical protocol used for the deter-
GAE/100g of fresh weight (Balasundram et al. 2006).
mination of AC of food extracts (Savatovi
c et al.
This could be because the waste has gone through
2012). The AC of a compound can be different
some processing conditions for juice extraction, which
depending not only on the assay used, but also when
may have caused loss of such compounds due to oxida-
using the same assay, depending on the solvent used
tive degradation. Therefore, phenolic compounds are
for extraction of the antioxidant compounds, since
not contributing to a large extent to the high AC of
AC also depends on the polarity of the extracting
tomato pomace observed in this study.
solvent (Moure et al. 2001; Prior et al. 2005). The
polarity of the medium affects the interaction of the
Lycopene
antioxidant with other compounds, which plays an
important role in the final AC results (Moure et al. The lycopene content in the six batches of
2001), and therefore different studies may find varying tomato pomace varied between 279.9 ± 16.4 and
results for a same natural material. For these reasons, 690.9 ± 21.0 mg.g
1 d.w. (Table 4). The lycopene con-
it is recommended that a variety of methods, based tent in tomato processing wastes varies widely,
on different reactions principles, should be used in depending on the initial content in the raw tomatoes,

the processing conditions to which the by-product has
gone through, and the methodology for carotenoid
determination. Results have been reported to vary
from as low as 10 to as high as 7,000 mg.g
1 (d.w.), as
shown in a recent review (Strati and Oreopoulou,
2014). Kalogeropoulos et al. (2012) found a similar
lycopene content for tomato wastes, of 413.7 mg.g
1
(d.w.). In our study we analysed pomace obtained in a
high performing processing plant, meaning that the
processing conditions were optimised for tomato juice
extraction. Therefore, the results presented are a good
indicative of the amount of lycopene that can be
expected to be recovered from processing wastes, indi-
cating a potential of using this pomace as a functional
food ingredient with high carotenoid content, or even
as a raw material for lycopene extraction, in replace-
ment of producing high-lycopene tomato varieties
exclusively for the extraction of the bioactive com-
pound (Rath et al. 2009). Also, considering our study
material presented a lower moisture than several other
studies (section 3.1.3), the recovery of the carotenoid
would be facilitated by less intensive drying processes
that would need to be applied before extracting the
compound from the source material. This would con-
tribute to the feasibility of the large-scale process of
freeze-drying tomato pomace to preserve the carote-
noids prior to the extraction. Freeze-drying is a costly
process due to its high energy requirement, however,
the high market value of lycopene and the lower initial
moisture of the tomato pomace would help to offset
the processing costs associated with this drying process.
Lycopene is a lipophilic bioactive compound that
presents a series of important sensory, technological
and physiological properties and is responsible for
providing the colour red to several vegetables, such as
tomatoes, peppers and watermelon. It is considered
one of the most powerful natural antioxidants and
when consumed in the diet presents provitamin A
activity, helps regulate the immune system and acts as
a powerful antioxidant by inhibiting free radicals
(Rodriguez-Amaya, 2001). Tomato is the main source
of dietary and commercial lycopene, and between 72
and 92% of the total lycopene content in raw tomatoes
is in the skin and water-insoluble pulp fraction
(Sharma and Le Maguer 1996). Since the production of
synthetic lycopene is still a costly process, the recovery
of this high-value-added compound from raw materi-
als, especially processing wastes that are regularly dis-
posed of by the food industry, represents a viable
alternative, while also proposing alternative uses for the
wastes generated by the food processing industry.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCES AND NUTRITION 9
Correlation between antioxidant capacity and bio-
active compounds
Correlation between each AC result, AC and PC, AC
and lycopene, and PC and lycopene was assessed
through the evaluation of Pearson’s correlation coeffi-
cient (r). A strong correlation was observed between the
results of the DPPH and the FRAP assays (r ¼ 0.8648,
p < 0.05), indicating that the two assays provide com-
parable results. PC showed no significant correlation
with any of the AC results (p > 0.05), further indicating
that these compounds are not contributing to the sig-
nificant AC of tomato pomace, which can thus be
attributed to the lycopene present in the sample.
Lycopene content and TEAC values presented a very
strong correlation (r ¼ 0.9769, p < 0.001). As previously
mentioned, the TEAC assay has a higher sensitivity to
lipophilic compounds present in the extract, when com-
pared to the DPPH and FRAP assays (M€ uller et al.
2011), therefore it is a more suitable test for determin-
ation of AC of products such as tomato pomace, where
the main antioxidant compounds are of lipophilic
nature.
Fractionation in skin and seed fractions
The use of a fast and simple batch sedimentation process
to separate the pomace in its skin and seed fractions was
evaluated in order to assess the viability of using this
process as a pre-treatment for obtaining a source mater-
ial with a higher concentration of lycopene. The lyco-
pene content of each fraction (mg.g
1 d.w.) was: whole
pomace 416.34 ± 35.37, skin fraction 645.54 ± 32.01 and
seed fraction 122.87 ± 8.21. Knoblich et al. (2005) found
similar results, of 734.0 and 130.0 mg.g
1 d.w. for the
skin and seed fractions, respectively. Our results repre-
sent a 55% increase in lycopene yield when using the
skin fraction only, compared to the whole pomace,
therefore, the separation of the different fractions by
sedimentation is effective for obtaining a lycopene-rich
fraction from the tomato pomace. The skin fraction,
richer in lycopene than the seed fraction, could there-
fore be applied as a lycopene-rich food ingredient to
act as antioxidant and colouring agent, or even be used
as raw material for lycopene extraction, improving the
efficiency of the use of organic solvent for obtaining
the carotenoid due to the higher concentration of lyco-
pene in the source material. The seed fraction could be
potentially applied for other uses, such as oil extraction.
However, the intensive use of water in the fractionation
process may accelerate degradation of the sample
material, since it increases moisture content, thus
10 Y. P. A. SILVA ET AL.
requiring a faster and more intensive drying process to
be applied later to avoid degradation.
Conclusion
Tomato pomace retains large amounts of antioxidant
compounds after processing, especially the carotenoid
lycopene, although presenting a low amount of phenolic
compounds. Therefore, freeze-dried tomato pomace has
a potential of being used as a functional food ingredient
to act against oxidation, or as raw material for the
extraction of lycopene. A sedimentation process was effi-
cient to separate skin from seeds, with an increased lyco-
pene yield obtained when using the skin fraction in
place of the whole pomace as a source material. The
high dietary fibre and lycopene content of tomato pom-
ace make it a potential functional food ingredient, thus
adding value to a waste and possibly improving the
quality of food products. Considering the worldwide
presence of the tomato processing industry, the reutilisa-
tion of tomato pomace would represent a good alterna-
tive source of natural antioxidants and fibres for the
food industry, while also contributing to reducing the
environmental impacts of food production.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the processing company,
for providing the materials used in the study, and Professor
Fl
avio Alves da Silva for his remarks on methodology and
the interpretation of the results obtained.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the Coordenaç~ao de
Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de N
ıvel Superior
(CAPES=Brazil), the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento
Cient
ıfico e Tecnol

ogico (CNPq=Brazil), and the Fundaç~ao
de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Goi
as (FAPEG=Brazil).
ORCID
Yasmini P. A. Silva http://orcid.org/0000-0001-
5575-0819
References
Albanese D, Adiletta G, D0 Acunto M, Cinquanta L,
Di Matteo M. 2014. Tomato peel drying and carotenoids
stability of the extracts. Int J Food Sci Tech. 49:2458–2463.
AOAC – Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 2005.
Official methods of analyzis of the AOAC International.
18th ed. Gaithersburg (USA): AOAC International.
Balasundram N, Sundram K, Samman S. 2006. Phenolic
compounds in plants and agri-industrial by-products:
antioxidant activity, occurrence, and potential uses. Food
Chem. 99:191–203.
Benzie IFF, Strain JJ. 1996. The ferric reducing ability of
plasma (FRAP) as a measure of antioxidant power: the
FRAP assay. Anal Biochem. 239:70–76.
Bligh EG, Dyer WJ. 1959. A rapid method of total lipid
extraction and purification. Can J Biochem Phys.
37:911–917.
Borguini RG, Torres EAFS. 2009. Tomatoes and tomato
products as dietary sources of antioxidants. Food Rev Int.
25:313–325.
Botineştean C, Gruia AT, Jianu I. 2015. Utilization of
seeds from tomato processing wastes as raw material
for oil production. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage.
17:118–124.
Brand-Williams W, Cuvelier ME, Berset C. 1995. Use of a
free radical method to evaluate antioxidant activity. LWT
– Food Sci Technol. 28:25–30.
Carlsen MH, Halvorsen BL, Holte K, Bøhn SK, Dragland S,
Sampson L, Willey C, et al. 2010. The total antioxidant
content of more than 3100 foods, beverages, spices, herbs
and supplements used worldwide. Nutr J. 9:1–11.
Chandra HM, Ramalingam S. 2011. Antioxidant potentials
of skin, pulp, and seed fractions of commercially import-
ant tomato cultivars. Food Sci Biotechnol. 20:15–21.
Chandra HM, Shanmugaraj BM, Srinivasan B, Ramalingam
S. 2012. Influence of genotypic variations on antioxidant
properties in different fractions of tomato. J Food Sci.
77:C1174–C1178.
Choe E, Min DB. 2007. Chemistry of deep-fat frying oils.
J Food Sci. 72:R77–R86.
Del Valle M, C^amara MM, Torija ME. 2006. Chemical char-
acterization of tomato pomace. J Sci Food Agr.
86:1232–1236.
Eller FJ, Moser JK, Kenar JA, Taylor SL. 2010. Extraction
and analyzis of tomato seed oil. J Am Oil Chem Soc.
87:755–762.
Elleuch M, Bedigian D, Roiseux O, Besbes S, Blecker C,
Attia H. 2011. Dietary fibre and fibre-rich by-products
of food processing: characterization, technological func-
tionality and commercial applications: A review. Food
Chem. 124:411–421.
FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. 2016. World Crops Production; [accessed Apr
2016] http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/Q/QC/E.
Freire PCM, Mancini-Filho J, Ferreira TAPdC. 2013.
oes f
ısico-qu
ımicas em o
Principais alteraç~
leos e gorduras
submetidos ao processo de fritura por imers~ao: regu-
lamentaç~ao e efeitos na sa
ude. Rev Nutr. 26:353–358.
George B, Kaur C, Khurdiya DS, Kapoor HC. 2004.
Antioxidants in tomato (Lycopersium esculentum) as a
function of genotype. Food Chem. 84:45–51.
Kalogeropoulos N, Chiou A, Pyriochou V, Peristeraki A,
Karathanos VT. 2012. Bioactive phytochemicals in indus-
trial tomatoes and their processing byproducts. LWT –
Food Sci Technol. 49:213–216.

Knoblich M, Anderson B, Latshaw D. 2005. Analyzes of
tomato peel and seed byproducts and their use as a
source of carotenoids. J Sci Food Agr. 85:1166–1170.
Larrauri JA, Rup
erez P, Saura-Calixto F. 1997. Effect of dry-
ing temperature on the stabilitity of polyphenols and
antioxidant activity of red grape pomace peels. J Agr
Food Chem. 45:1390–1393.
Lavelli V, Torresani MC. 2011. Modelling the stability of
lycopene-rich by-products of tomato products. Food
Chem. 125:529–535.
Manach C, Scalbert A, Morand C, R
em
esy C, Jim
enez L.
2004. Polyphenols: food sources and bioavailability. Am J
Clin Nutr. 79:727–747.
McGuire RG. 1992. Reporting of objective color measure-
ments. HortScience. 27:1254–1255.
Moure A, Cruz JM, Franco D, Domı
nguez JM, Sineiro J,
Domı
nguez H, Jos
e N
~ez M, Paraj
o JC, 2001. Natural
un
antioxidants from residual sources. Food Chem.
72:145–171.
M€uller L, Fr€ohlich K, B€
ohm V. 2011. Comparative antioxi-
dant activities of carotenoids measured by ferric reducing
antioxidant power (FRAP), ABTS bleaching assay
(aTEAC), DPPH assay and peroxyl radical scavenging
assay. Food Chem. 129:139–148.
Navarro-Gonz
alez I, Garc
ıa-Valverde V, Garc
ıa-Alonso J,
Periago MJ. 2011. Chemical profile, functional and anti-
oxidant properties of tomato peel fiber. Food Res Int.
44:1528–1535.
Nour V, Ionica ME, Trandafir I. 2015. Bread enriched in
lycopene and other bioactive compounds by addition of
dry tomato waste. J Food Sci Technol. 52:8260–8267.
Oroian M, Escriche I. 2015. Antioxidants: characterization,
natural sources, extraction and analysis. Food Res Int.
74:10–36.
Prior RL, Wu X, Schaich K. 2005. Standardized methods for
the determination of antioxidant capacity and phenolics
in foods and dietary supplements. J Agric Food Chem.
53:4290–4302.
R Core Team. 2015. R: A Language and Environment for
Statistical Computing. Vienna: The R Foundation for
Statistical Computing.
Rath S, Olempska-Beer Z, Kuznesof PM. 2009. Lycopene
extract from tomato. Chemical and Technical Assessment
(CTA); [accessed 2017 Aug 28]. http://www.fao.org/fil-
eadmin/templates/agns/pdf/jecfa/cta/71/lycopene_extract_
from_tomato.pdf.
Re R, Pellegrini N, Proteggente A, Pannala A, Yang M,
Rice-Evans CA. 1999. Antioxidant activity applying an
improved ABTS radical cation decolorization assay. Free
Radical Bio Med. 26:1231–1237.
Rodriguez-Amaya D. 2001. A guide to carotenoid analysis
in foods. Washington (DC): ILST Press.
View publication stats
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCES AND NUTRITION 11
Rodriguez GA. 2001. Extraction, isolation, and purification
of carotenoids. In: Wrolstad RE, editor. Current protocols
in food analytical chemistry. New Jersey (NJ): John Wiley
& Sons; F2.1.1–F2.1.11
Ruiz-Celma A, Cuadros F, L
opez-Rodr
ıguez F. 2012.
Characterization of pellets from industrial tomato resi-
dues. Food Bioprod Process. 90:700–706.
Savadkoohi S, Hoogenkamp H, Shamsi K, Farahnaky A.
2014. Color, sensory and textural attributes of beef frank-
furter, beef ham and meat-free sausage containing tomato
pomace. Meat Sci. 97:410–418.


Savatovi
c S, Cetkovi

c GC, Canadanovi
c-Brunet J, Djilas S.
2012. Tomato waste: A potential source of hydrophilic
antioxidants. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 63:129–137.
Shao D, Venkitasamy C, Li X, Pan Z, Shi J, Wang B, Teh
HE, McHugh TH. 2015. Thermal and storage characteris-
tics of tomato seed oil. LWT – Food Sci Technol.
63:191–197.
Sharma SK, Le Maguer M. 1996. Lycopene in tomatoes and
tomato pulp fractions. Ital J Food Sci. 8:107–113.
Singleton VL, Rossi JA. 1965. Colorimetry of total phenolic
with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents.
Am J Enol Viticult. 16:144–158.
Sogi DS, Bawa AS. 1998. Studies on dehydration of tomato
processing waste. Ind Food Pack. 52:26–29.
Sogi DS, Bhatia RS, Garg K, Bawa AS. 2005. Biological
evaluation of tomato waste seed meals and protein con-
centrate. Food Chem. 89:53–56.
Sogi DS, Kiran J, Bawa AS. 1999. Characterization and util-
ization of tomato seed oil from tomato processing waste.
J Food Sci Tech Mys. 36:248–249.
Strati IF, Oreopoulou VI. 2011. Process optimisation for
recovery of carotenoids from tomato waste. Food Chem.
129:747–752.
Strati IF, Oreopoulou VI. 2014. Recovery of carotenoids
from tomato processing by-products – a review. Food
Res Int. 65:311–321.
Toor RK, Savage GP. 2005. Antioxidant activity in different
fractions of tomatoes. Food Res Int. 38:487–494.
Valdez-Morales M, Espinosa-Alonso LG, Espinoza-Torres
LC, Delgado-Vargas F, Medina-Godoy S. 2014. Phenolic
content and antioxidant and antimutagenic activities in
tomato peel, seeds, and byproducts. J Agr Food Chem.
62:5281–5289.
Vinha AF, Alves RC, Barreira SVP, Castro A, Costa ASG,
Oliveira MBPP. 2014. Effect of peel and seed removal on
the nutritional value and antioxidant activity of tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum L.) fruits. LWT – Food Sci
Technol. 55:197–202.
WPTC – World Processing Tomato Council. 2016. World
production estimate; [accessed 2016 Apr 12] http://www.
wptc.to/releases-wptc.php.