↓ Skip to main content

Value of a tomato byproduct as a source of dietary fiber in rats

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, December 2001
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Value of a tomato byproduct as a source of dietary fiber in rats
Published in
Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, December 2001
DOI 10.1023/a:1011855316778
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela Alvarado, Emperatriz Pacheco-Delahaye, Patricio Hevia

Abstract

A residue consisting of tomato peel and seeds is a byproduct of the tomato paste industry. This product had, after drying and grinding, 101.4 g water, 175.6 g protein, 95.9 g lipids, 36.4 g ash and 590.7 g total carbohydrates per kilogram of residue. The carbohydrates in the residue were mainly dietary fiber (495.3 g) from which 405.4 g were insoluble fiber. Additionally, the residue had ascorbic acid 0.25 g, P 3 g, Ca 1.7 g, K 13.1 g, Mg 2.4 g, Cu 0.013 g, Fe 0.248 g, Mn 0.018 g and Zn 0.174 g per kilogram of residue. The residue fed to rats at increasing concentrations in the diet (0, 134, 263 and 387 g/kg diet) over 18 days had no effect on body weight gain; caused an increase in food intake and slightly reduced feed efficiency. Incorporation of the residue in the diet caused a substantial increase in fecal mass, which was proportional to the dietary fiber provided by the residue (r = 0.89); apparent absorption of protein, energy, Ca, Mg, Fe, Zn and Cu present in the diets was reduced. These reductions were proportional to the amount of dietary fiber provided by the residue and became substantial when the residue was included at 263 or 387 g/kg. However, when the residue was included at 134 g/kg, little effect on the apparent absorption of the dietary nutrients was noted. Because this concentration provided the rats with approximately 10 times more fiber than that recommended for humans, one can expect that if this tomato residue were consumed at concentrations recommended for humans, it should have no effect on nutrient availability. These results indicate that this tomato residue represents an attractive source of fiber, which in rats had a low apparent absorption (52-56%). In addition, it was very effective in increasing fecal mass with no negative effects on growth performance.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 30 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 28%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 31%
Engineering 3 9%
Chemistry 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Chemical Engineering 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 September 2021.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Plant Foods for Human Nutrition
#288
of 743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,690
of 132,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Foods for Human Nutrition
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 132,007 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them